ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Stuart Donaldson: Oil and Gas UK has highlighted that headline tax rates of 50%, or 67.5% for companies paying petroleum revenue tax, are no longer sustainable. As the UK continental shelf enters an new, ever more mature phase, and the oil price remains lower for longer, the fiscal burden needs to reflect these changing circumstances and to be permanently reduced. Will the Government listen to the industry, and what fiscal support will they bring forward for the oil and gas industry in this year’s Budget?

Damian Hinds: In the “Driving investment” paper, the Government absolutely recognise the need over time to change the fiscal structure. The scale of what my right hon. Friend did reflects the fact that the figure stood at £1.3 billion. The most recent of the headline tax reductions took effect on 1 January this year.

Peter Aldous: I echo these points. The North sea oil and gas industry is facing very serious challenges at this time. Working with the industry and the Oil and Gas Authority, the Treasury can help to overcome the problems. May I urge the Minister to include in the Budget tax-cutting initiatives and support that build on last year’s measures and help to attract investment to this basin and to ease the worries of many very worried people?

Damian Hinds: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that the shale wealth fund could deliver up to £1 billion of benefits to communities hosting shale gas development. This is in addition to the existing industry scheme. My hon. Friend is entirely right that it is important that communities see those benefits and have the reassurance of additionality.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Given that up to 140,000 jobs and half of the north-east region’s exports rely on Britain’s membership of the European Union, does the Chancellor agree with me and the majority of members of the North East chamber of commerce that an exit from the EU would be extremely damaging for north-east economic growth and regeneration?

George Osborne: I believe that the best way to help the UK steel industry is both to take action at home and through being part of a large economic bloc—in other words, the European Union—raising our concerns about, for example, Chinese steel dumping. Frankly, when we make that argument with China, our voice will be amplified if we make it as part of the EU as opposed to making it alone.

Steven Baker: Is it not extraordinary that the Chancellor asked the G20 to make that statement, and is it not the case that he made that request so that it could tee up this element of “Project Fear”?

George Osborne: I know that Russia Today is the favoured channel of the Labour leadership, but this is Treasury questions. We are raising with the European Union—this is another example of where being part of a bigger club helps—the possibility of getting a pan-European agreement for country-by-country public reporting so that we can see what multinational companies are paying in different countries. Of course, our ability to achieve that is amplified by being part of the EU.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If my right hon. Friend’s rather apocalyptic view of our leaving the European Union is correct, was it not irresponsible and inaccurate of the Prime Minister to say that he ruled nothing out prior to the completion of the most unsatisfactory renegotiation?

Margaret Greenwood: Between 2007 and 2013, more than 8,000 businesses in the north-west were able to start up, thanks to EU funding. I welcome the Chancellor’s comments this morning about the analysis that he will put forward before 23 June. Will that include specific detail about the impact of leaving the EU on the economy of the north-west?

George Osborne: I am happy to take on board the hon. Lady’s request about the impact that an exit would have on the north-west of England. I am a north-west MP, and I know that many businesses in the north-west have access to that big free trade single market, which is the largest market in the world. All the alternatives on offer, whether we go for the approaches taken in Norway, Switzerland, Canada or the World Trade Organisation—of course, those who advocate withdrawal have not been able to settle on one approach—would involve some kind of barrier to entry, or we would have to pay into the EU budget, as Norway does, and accept free movement of people, which is one of the complaints about EU membership. Examining the alternatives, as we will do in the coming days, will throw a spotlight on the choice facing the country.

George Osborne: I will always fight, and the Government will always fight, for the best interests of the United Kingdom, and we will do whatever we can in response to the verdict of the people. My recommendation, and the recommendation of the British Government, is that we are better off in the reformed EU—

George Osborne: The former shadow Chancellor is right to point to both the immediate economic shock, which I think is generally accepted—even those who advocate withdrawal, for perfectly honourable reasons, accept that there would be an immediate economic dislocation—and the longer-term costs. If we tell Britain to make this leap in the dark, we have to be able to answer the question: what is the alternative? How do we reassure the car manufacturer in north-east England that tariffs will not be imposed on its cars, as a result of which it will not be so competitive and there will not be so many jobs in its factory? Those are the questions for this big national debate.

Stewart Hosie: The Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was in London yesterday making the case for the UK to remain in the EU. She made the point that access to that market supports some 300,000 jobs in Scotland and some 3 million jobs in the UK. May I ask the Chancellor to agree with me—I am sure he will—that in terms of EU membership, trade deals are easier to agree as a bloc, harmonised regulation helps businesses to export and, notwithstanding the fact that improvements can always be made, being a member of the EU benefits consumers as well?

Stewart Hosie: The extent to which the EU has succeeded is actually quite remarkable in terms of free trade, free movement—we think it is a boon—and, indeed, the commensurate protections for the environment, social protection and employment rights. These substantial achievements of the European Union are to be celebrated, not renounced. That is the positive case we are making. May I urge the Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a positive case, because the in campaign does not have a 20-point lead to squander with a negative campaign?

George Osborne: I am making the positive case that we will be stronger, safer and better off, which are all positive outcomes for our country, and I am pointing out that there are question marks over the alternatives. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that we do not know what the leap in the dark would entail, but of course I want to do this in a positive way. There is a healthy debate across our political system as well as across our country, but I take the view of Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, which is that “I won’t speak ill of a Conservative.”

George Osborne: The national living wage will mean that a full-time minimum-wage worker benefiting from the policy will earn over £4,000 more by 2020 in cash terms, a rise of more than 35%. Due to the ripple effects on those on higher incomes, up to 6 million workers will benefit. The national living wage will drive up productivity; it will make sure that work pays; it is progressive and fair; and I am proud it is being introduced by a Conservative Government.

George Osborne: The hon. Lady seems to be opposing the national living wage. I think it is a progressive policy. Indeed, it was based on work by the Resolution Foundation. If you want a regressive policy, I will give you one. How about increasing the basic rate of income tax? That is what the Labour party is proposing in Scotland—the first sign of what an economic policy would look like under this new Labour leadership. How can an increase in the basic rate of income tax, which would hit people earning over £11,000, be remotely progressive or fair?

George Osborne: Many employer organisations and businesses have welcomed the national living wage, and many studies suggest that having a higher floor for wages drives up productivity, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is one of Britain’s great economic challenges.

Greg Hands: As part of our long-term economic plan, the Government’s charter for budget responsibility was approved by Parliament on 15 October 2015. The charter sets a path to this country’s long-term financial health and to a surplus. Unlike other parties in this House, we will be strong and consistent in our support for the charter. The Budget is on 16 March.

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our budget reduction efforts. I have had no such discussions so far, nor any submissions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I have, however, received a submission from Ed Balls’s former head of policy, Karim Palant, who said of the shadow Chancellor’s changing position on the charter:
	“This kind of chaos less than a month into the job is the kind of blow even significant political figures struggle to recover from.”

Greg Hands: I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for deficit reduction. It is good to have her back. I must remind her, however, that in the last Parliament she voted against virtually every single deficit reduction measure the Government took. We have a big programme of infrastructure investment worth £100 billion over the course of this Parliament, which includes transport infrastructure and other measures that will help her constituents and people across the country.

Jeremy Quin: As the IMF has just been mentioned, does the Chief Secretary agree that its statement last week that we have
	“delivered robust growth, record high employment, a significant reduction in fiscal deficits, and increased financial sector resilience”
	is all good news that we should be welcoming? There is more to be done and I wonder whether he is looking forward to the pearls of wisdom that might come from the Opposition, now that they have the benefit of Mr Varoufakis.

Greg Hands: The IMF has been clear in its endorsement of the charter for budget responsibility:
	“The transparency of the new rule—with a focus on headline balances and a simple and well-defined escape clause in the event of very low growth—is welcome.”
	It goes on to commend us on having the “appropriate level of flexibility” in the charter. In respect of any external advisers that are taken on by the Labour party, it would appear from this morning’s The Sun that Labour MPs are extremely unhappy—

Mr Speaker: Order. Sit down. It is a terrible waste of time—long-winded, boring and unnecessary.

John Martin McDonnell: In the debates at the time of the charter, I and many others warned the Chancellor of the potential impact of global adverse headwinds. The Chancellor responded by boasting
	“of having an economic plan that actually produces better results than were forecast”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1385.]
	Since then, we have seen business investment fall, his export target recede into the distance, the trade deficit widen, manufacturing and construction enter recession, and the biggest productivity gap for a generation. Last week, to crown it all, the Chancellor told us the economy is smaller than we thought. I say to him that if his economic plan is now producing worse results than forecast, imposing more stealth taxes and cuts in the Budget will only—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Thank you. We need a question mark. [Interruption.] Order, order. I said what I said because Ministers are responsible for answering for Government policy, not that of the Opposition. People who ask questions, be they from the Front or the Back Bench, must do so pithily. A pithy reply, Chief Secretary.

Greg Hands: All forecasts at the moment still show the UK performing extremely well, with strong rates of growth compared with other G7 countries. The Chancellor was right to say over the weekend that we may need to undertake further reductions in spending because this country can afford only what it can afford. He went on to say:
	“I’m absolutely determined that first and foremost in this uncertain time we have economic security. That’s what people rely on.”
	I am equally clear that it would be a fundamental disaster for this country if we pursued the policies that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has been promoting in the six months that he has been shadow Chancellor.

George Osborne: The Government want to make home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, which is why we are building 400,000 new homes and have extended Help to Buy. Our new Help to Buy ISA, launched a year ago at the Budget, is already being used by almost one third of a million families to save for their first home—confirmation that the Conservative Government are on the side of home ownership.

Seema Malhotra: There you have it, Mr Speaker. We know from the English housing survey that 201,000 fewer households owned a home in 2015 than five years ago, compared with an increase of 1 million under Labour. By 2025, nine out of 10 Britons under 35 on modest incomes will not be able to afford a home. Rents in the private sector are soaring, and the housing benefit bill is likely to be £350 million more than the Chancellor forecast last year. Is his record on housing investment one of failure, with British families now literally paying the price?

George Osborne: Housing starts are higher than they were when I became the Chancellor, but what people need—homeowners or people who are building houses—above all is economic security, which is what the Government are seeking to deliver. Frankly, the fact that the Labour party is now getting its advice from Yanis Varoufakis and the revolutionary Marxist broadcaster Paul Mason does not suggest to me that it has an answer to economic security. Presumably Labour chose those two because Chairman Mao was dead and Micky Mouse was busy.

David Gauke: Tax treaties provide protection for UK citizens from discriminatory taxation in other countries. The UK has one of the largest treaty networks, with more than 120 treaties in force. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs cannot intervene where a taxpayer is in dispute with a foreign revenue authority on a domestic issue. However, where a UK resident believes that a treaty partner is not applying the treaty properly, they can request HMRC to raise the issue with the other revenue authority.

Neil Gray: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. My constituent David Duncan is currently being pursued by HMRC’s mutual assistance in the recovery of debt team for a tax payment relating to a time when he was residing in Germany but working in South Korea. Mr Duncan had been assured by his employer that he would have to—

Damian Hinds: The 2% duty cut at the March Budget 2015 continues to support the 296,000 people across the sector, including such distilleries as Highland Park in the right hon. Gentleman’s Orkney and Shetland constituency.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will recall that, last year, the Red Book estimated that the cuts in alcohol duties would lead to a reduction of £185 million in revenue. In fact, from April 2015 through to January 2016, we have seen a £190 million increase in revenues. Will he therefore look very carefully at the request from the Scotch whisky industry for a further 2% cut in spirits duties this year?

Damian Hinds: I know how much the sector values the cut in the duty—it was the first since 1996—and it is great to see the industry in good health, with the number of distilleries and exports to other parts of the world growing strongly. I have received representations from the Scotch Whisky Association among others in relation to the upcoming Budget.

Andrew Griffiths: Any changes or reductions in spirit duty will impact on the market for other drinks, such as beer. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but this Government and this Chancellor scrapped Labour’s hated beer duty escalator and cut beer duty three times, which led to more beer sales and more revenue for the Treasury, and which saved hundreds of pubs. Will he continue that support in future?

Margaret Ferrier: Scotch whisky is the biggest net contributor to UK trade in goods. Without it, the UK’s trade deficit would be 11% larger. Manufacturers across Scotland, including Spey in my constituency, that have experience of exporting know that domestic rates of tax have an impact on the attitude of international markets. What consideration has the Chancellor given to industry calls to reduce the excise in the upcoming Budget?

Michelle Donelan: What more support, pension-wise, can the Chancellor give to the self-employed? Recent trends suggest that in five years’ time 4.7 million British people will be self-employed and will not benefit from auto-enrolment.

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. Helping the self-employed is one of the Government’s key priorities. We will have to see what is in the Budget on 16 March.

Greg Hands: I join the hon. Gentleman in campaigning for the UK to remain a member of the EU. That is the right thing for us to do both for the public finances overall and for the future of the UK economy, as the G20 communiqué made clear over the weekend. It may well have an impact on the university sector, too. I am sure that that will be one of the questions featured in the forthcoming debate leading into the referendum.

Harriett Baldwin: The Chancellor has done more than anyone else to tackle the regulatory failure of the 1990s with regard to Equitable Life. For example, with-profits annuitants will receive full compensation for the life of the annuity, pre-1992 annuitants have received ex gratia payments of up to £10,000, and £775 million has been paid out tax-free to others, despite the constrained public finances. Those on pensions credit got a doubling of their payment just before Christmas.

John Pugh: Will the Minister clarify how much of the £1.5 billion promised by the Government has been delivered and handed over?

Harriett Baldwin: I regularly update Parliament on the precise figures. So far, we are at almost £1 billion. Of course, the payments for the annuitants will continue for the rest of their lives.

David Gauke: The Government are cutting taxes to encourage small businesses to grow. Corporation tax will fall to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020—the lowest in the G20. The employment allowance will rise by 50% this April, giving employers a £3,000 discount on national insurance contributions, and the Seed enterprise investment scheme supports investment in small, early-stage companies, helping more than 2,900 companies to raise over £250 million.

Richard Burgon: The plans to move towards quarterly online tax reporting are proving to be deeply unpopular with small businesses, so will the Chancellor confirm the impact on administration costs for small businesses of the Government’s plans for quarterly reporting to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?

David Gauke: Overall, the Government are clear that HMRC’s target is to reduce the burden on businesses by £400 million by the end of this Parliament. Moving towards a digital taxation system is something that can help businesses to reduce their costs. We are consulting on the details, but let me make it absolutely clear that there will be no quarterly tax returns, as it has been wrongly reported that there will be in some cases.

David Gauke: The Government have committed to raising the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher-rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. At the summer Budget, the Government took the first steps towards meeting these commitments by increasing the personal allowance to £11,000 and raising the higher-rate threshold to £43,000 in 2016-17. Twenty-nine million people will pay less tax after these changes and 570,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether.

Greg Hands: The Government have published their productivity plan, “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation”. This plan outlines the steps we are taking to encourage further investment in the drivers of productivity growth, including science, education, skills and infrastructure. It also sets out the way in which the Government are promoting a dynamic economy through reforming planning laws, boosting competition and creating a northern powerhouse.

John McNally: According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, UK productivity measured by output per hour is now 18 percentage points below the average of the rest of the G7 economies—the widest gap since records began. Why is productivity deteriorating under this Chancellor?

Kirsten Oswald: Has the Chancellor had a chance to read last week’s National Audit Office report on financial services mis-selling? Does he agree that it draws attention to a missed opportunity to deliver a financial advice sector that protects small-scale investors when things go wrong, as they did in the case of the Connaught fund, with devastating results for a number of my constituents?

Flick Drummond: The Government are making some of the biggest investments in road and rail in our nation’s history. Is my right hon. Friend aware of any alternative investment policies, and of the impact that they would have on our nation’s economic security and, in particular, the southern powerhouse?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the big investment that is being made in our nation’s infrastructure, especially transport infrastructure. We have the biggest rail programme since the Victorian age and the biggest road programme since the 1970s, which the hon. Lady is seeing in the improvements to the A27 and M27 in her area. Of course, an economic policy that destroys all confidence in the British economy would mean no investment.

David Gauke: The United Kingdom is leading the way in respect of a public register of beneficial ownership, but other countries, including the overseas territories, are not committed to that. We continue to engage with them, because we believe that they should follow the same direction as us—as, indeed, should other countries.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to ensure that this is done fairly. Under the present Government, the richest pay a higher proportion of income tax than they did under the last Labour Government. Figures published this morning by HMRC contain, for the first time, the income tax data for 2013-14, which was when the 50p rate was reduced to 45p. The data reveal that in that year there was an £8 billion increase in revenues from additional-rate taxpayers, which completely defies the predictions made by the Labour party at the time, and shows that we have lower, competitive taxes that are paid by all.

Drew Hendry: Figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union show that 2,000 HMRC staff in Scotland face redundancy, including 150 experienced and dedicated people in Inverness. At the same time, the HMRC overtime bill is about £6 million a month. Can the Chancellor explain to my constituents how that makes any sense at all?

George Osborne: That is absolutely what the Government were elected to deliver. We have manifesto commitments to deliver not just the £50,000 threshold for the higher rate, but a £12,500 personal allowance, so that more people can see the benefit of either paying no tax if they are low paid, or paying less tax if they are better paid.

Michael Fabricant: I am proud to have been part of the Government who introduced the national living wage, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to look at the report from the British Retail Consortium entitled “Retail 2020”, which talks about that and about the impact of internet shopping.

Paula Sherriff: The Chancellor’s statement on ECOFIN referred to the UK seeking a multilateral agreement on making the details of the tax paid by companies publicly available on a country by country basis. Will he tell us what measures he will take to achieve that, and on what timetable? As a first step, will he admit that his Google tax deal was not a great success, and does he accept the Public Accounts Committee’s call for full transparency?

Philippa Whitford: When services that have been removed from local authority control and centralised in England have been granted the right to reclaim VAT, does the Chancellor accept that the refusal to grant that right to Police Scotland—making it the only UK force to pay VAT—just looks vindictive? Will he not reconsider that decision?

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be well aware of the widespread and cross-party support for a children’s specialist accident and trauma department at Southampton general hospital, so may I urge him to give careful consideration to the bid put together by clinicians? I know they have sent it to him and are looking for support for a match funding bid.

George Osborne: I am aware of the case being made—a strong case, in my view—for the children’s facilities at the Southampton hospital. It is a case advanced by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has pushed it, alongside her. We are looking closely at it and I will make an announcement in due course.

Helen Goodman: The Chancellor chose to give a puff to his desire for Sunday trading liberalisation, but is he aware of the study produced yesterday which showed that all there will be is a switch of activity from small shops to big shops, and that that will mean a loss of thousands of jobs? [Interruption.]

George Osborne: Absolutely. We will give careful consideration—as I always do—to the proposals that my hon. Friend comes forward with to support North Lincolnshire and his own constituency. We have been able to make investments in new roads, reduce the tolls on the Humber bridge, and introduce enterprise zones. I would love to hear of any new ideas that he has.

Angus MacNeil: Happy St David’s day to you, Mr Speaker.
	The Chancellor often talks about repairing the roof when the sun is shining. Norway, a country the size of Scotland, managed to amass £810 billion in an oil fund when the sun shone. Just how much have the broad shoulders of the UK saved for a moment such as this to help north-east Scotland? Is the figure indeed zero?

George Osborne: We are providing support to Scotland, and that support is entrenched in the fiscal framework that we have agreed with the Scottish Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot duck his responsibilities. He wanted Scotland to be independent on 24 March—this month. If we had gone ahead with that—if the Scottish people had voted for it—there would have been a fiscal catastrophe in Scotland, because oil revenues have fallen by more than 90%. We had a question earlier from a Scottish National party Member—[Interruption.]

Lucy Frazer: In response to an earlier question on productivity, my right hon. Friend mentioned the drivers of growth being investment in schools and investment in science and technology. Does he, like me, welcome the Government’s commitment to train 17,500 more teachers in science, technology, engineering and maths, and does he think that there is absolutely no time to waste in recruiting those teachers?

George Osborne: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the big national challenges to get more children, particularly more girls, studying STEM subjects at school. The key to that is to get more STEM teachers. We have a series of incentives to drive that forward. Of course through our school freedoms, schools also have the tools to recruit teachers themselves.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Syria

Jo Cox: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cessation of hostilities in Syria.

Tobias Ellwood: The Syrian conflict is now almost in its sixth year. As a result of Assad’s brutality and the terror of Daesh, more than 250,000 people have lost their lives, half the population have been displaced, and more than 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian aid.
	Russia’s military intervention last autumn compounded the violence. Russia claims to be targeting terrorists, yet it has carried out strikes on moderate opposition groups and civilians. More than 1,300 civilians have been killed and 5,800 injured by Russian or regime airstrikes since the start of Russia’s campaign.
	Our goal is for Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government capable of protecting their people from Daesh and other extremists. Only when that happens can stability be returned to the region, which is necessary to stem the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe. The last few months have seen some progress towards that. The International Syria Support Group came together at the end of 2015 in Vienna to help to facilitate a return to a process leading to a political transition in Syria.
	In December, opposition groups came together to form the higher negotiations commission, representing the widest possible range of opposition views, and nominated a team to negotiate with the regime. Proximity talks between the regime and opposition began under UN auspices in January, but were paused as a result of a deteriorating situation on the ground. The ISSG met again in Munich at the Munich security conference on 11 February, agreeing that there should be a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access to named locations in Syria. Since then, the US and Russia have agreed at the highest levels on the terms of a cessation of hostilities. The agreement was codified in UN Security Council resolution 2268 on 26 February.
	The cessation of hostilities is an important step towards ending the terrible violence in Syria and bringing a lasting political settlement. It came into force on 27 February. Since then, we have seen a reduction in violence, which is of course a huge step forwards, but we need to see that sustained and to see a reduction in the number of reported violations.
	We have received reports of a number of violations, which we have passed to the UN and the ISSG co-chairs in Geneva. We need swift action to reduce those violations. We look to Russia in particular to use its influence with the regime to ensure that the cessation endures and that there are no further violations. It is crucial that the opposition see action being taken in response to allegations of violations to ensure their commitment and that of their Syrian constituents to the process.
	It is essential that the cessation of hostilities supports the wider political process. We support UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura’s plans to resume peace negotiations on 7 March. Those negotiations must deliver a political transition away from Assad to a legitimate Government that can support the needs and aspirations of all Syrians and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.
	At the same time, we call for complete and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria and an end to all violations of international humanitarian law, as set out in UN Security Council resolution 2254. We are relieved that desperately needed aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas of Syria, including those named in the Munich ISSG agreement of 11 February. It is imperative that that continues.
	The international community and particularly Russia, which has unique influence, must put pressure on the Assad regime to lift sieges and grant full and sustained humanitarian access. As I have said, there must be a political solution to the crisis in Syria. It is imperative that the steps I have described are implemented by all parties and that the cessation of hostilities endures. The UK is working strenuously to make that happen and will continue to do so.

Jo Cox: I thank the Minister for updating the House on such a vital issue. The cessation of hostilities in Syria that began on Friday is a much needed ray of hope in this tragic civil war, yet, as he has set out, it faces serious challenges after growing reports from international non-governmental organisations and the media of numerous violations of the truce. Syrian opposition leaders have claimed that it was close to collapse over the weekend and the French Government have urgently called for a meeting of the monitoring group amid allegations that Syrian and Russian forces have seriously breached its terms. In this context, will the Minister set out specifically what action the UK is taking within the ISSG to ensure robust and transparent monitoring of the cessation agreement?
	Secondly, is the UK joining efforts led by France for urgent action in the ISSG on the growing reports of violations of the cessation agreement by Assad and by Russia? Indeed, will the Minister address how it is even conceivable that the monitoring of the agreement is being jointly conducted by Russia, the same party that is responsible for the vast majority of recent civilian deaths? If the reports of Russian and regime violations are verified, what measures will the UK pursue to force a change in the calculations of both Putin and Assad? The UK has a critical role to play in giving everybody confidence in this system, in particular that the violations will be called out and the agreement protected. Are the Government considering, for example, further targeted sanctions against Russian entities in the event of further violations?
	Further, what is the UK’s assessment of the mobilisation of Assad’s forces and militias to encircle Aleppo? Is this not a direct violation of the cessation agreement? Can the Minister confirm that the cessation agreement covers those areas where al-Nusra or any other Security Council-designated terrorist group is mixed with the moderate opposition? If the cessation holds this week, can the Minister confirm that negotiations on political transition will be at the very top of the agenda at the meeting in Geneva next week?
	Finally, in the light of the reduction in violence, many Members of this House are deeply concerned about the lack of access to besieged areas inside Syria, particularly
	Daraya just outside Damascus, where people are starving to death. There is no ISIL or al-Nusra in Daraya, and it is unacceptable that the Assad regime, with the backing of Russia, is preventing this lifesaving aid, paid for by the British taxpayer, from getting to the most vulnerable. Do the Government and their partners have a deadline by which aid will reach Daraya and other besieged areas?

Tobias Ellwood: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) and her commitment to this area. She is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Syria, and I acknowledge the work that she does in raising these matters in the Chamber and elsewhere. The House is all the wiser for it. She raises a series of issues and I will do my best to answer them, but, as I have done in the past, I will write to her with more detail.
	On the hon. Lady’s last question, about making sure that aid gets through, I am pleased to see that I am joined here and supported by my colleagues from the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. As the hon. Lady knows, we hosted the Syria conference a couple of weeks ago in order to make sure, first, that the funds were available for the United Nations organisations to get to the necessary areas to provide the aid and assistance once the cessation of hostilities had taken effect. There have been varying degrees of success in trucks getting through. She will be aware that we have to get confirmation from the regime that the trucks can have safe passage. Airdrops have been used for the first time but have been less successful, for obvious reasons—factors such as who receives the kit on the ground, the weather conditions, where the supplies land, and ownership of the supplies once the drops take place all present difficulties, but further drops will take place in the future.
	The hon. Lady asks what more can be done. It is imperative that those who are putting together the ceasefire, which is happening at the highest level from the telephone calls between President Putin and President Obama, create and co-ordinate the verification model. That is not fully in place. This is a highly complex task because of the number of players involved across Syria and the challenges in making sure that verification can take place. The UK is pushing the ISSG co-chairs to investigate all allegations. We are using our own capabilities to feed into the system any violations that we become aware of so that they can be investigated. We have sent additional staff to the UN in Geneva to assist in this effort, and we are negotiating and discussing these matters with our UN Security Council colleagues.
	The hon. Lady talked about the difficulties in Aleppo. The situation is concerning. In the lead-up to the cessation of hostilities, people took advantage before the cessation came into effect on 27 February. As I said in my opening remarks, it is imperative that Russia shows leadership and shows that it recognises that it has a unique place and unique influence with the Assad regime, to make sure that the purpose of the cessation of hostilities, which is to allow that political transition, is achieved.
	The hon. Lady asked about the talks taking place with Staffan de Mistura on 7 March. It is critical to get the parties together. They broke apart last time because of the continued bombing that took place. It was the
	UN envoy who closed the meeting down before somebody walked out again. We do not want to see that repeated, which is why we are encouraging parties to resume those discussions, taking advantage of the cessation of hostilities that is in place, and we hope they are successful.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, raises an important point, which I will divide in two, if I may. There is a deconfliction system that makes sure that the coalition’s aircraft and involvement are separated from Russia’s, and that has now been in place for some time. However, what we are talking about here is a verification mechanism for the cessation of hostilities. The verification process has yet to be put in place; it is still being agreed by the co-chairs—Russia and the United States—and details will emerge soon.

Diana R. Johnson: I very much welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), and I pay tribute to her excellent work on this issue.
	The world community is watching the ceasefire very closely, and we all want it to be successful, not least to allow humanitarian aid into areas blighted by the conflict, but also to give a boost to the tentative peace talks. As the ceasefire has now been in operation for a few days, I would like to ask a number of questions.
	First, the letter from the Syrian National Council to Ban Ki-moon alleged there were 15 breaches of the ceasefire by Russia and the Assad regime. Following that, France called for an urgent meeting of the International Syria Support Group. Will the Minister confirm when the group will meet? What powers does it have to make a ruling on breaches of the ceasefire? Does it need unanimity to do so?
	Among reported breaches of the ceasefire, the most worrying was a reported gas attack in the Irbin area, with indications of a link to the Assad regime. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are aware of that attack? What special provisions are in place to investigate chemical weapons attacks?
	One key problem is a lack of agreement on which groups are terror organisations and what action is allowed. Will the Minister explain whether that will be discussed at the International Syria Support Group?
	To address the humanitarian situation, we need access to areas where there are no hostilities. Will the Minister explain what steps have been taken to establish the geographical demarcation of the ceasefire?
	Over the past six months, Russia has repeatedly acted to prolong the conflict. What discussions have there been with our allies in the EU to put pressure on Russia to abide by the ceasefire?
	Saudi Arabia also has a key position of influence. It is especially concerning, therefore, to hear of a possible Saudi response to Russian action. Has the Minister made any representations to the Saudi Government about that?
	Finally, may I ask about the status of the group Ahrar al-Sham? I understand that it was not a signatory to the ceasefire but had indicated that it would abide by it. However, it now claims that its headquarters in Idlib were attacked in a Russian airstrike—a claim backed by several sources. Will the Minister confirm whether the group is considered to be outside the terms of the ceasefire by the UK and the US?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Lady asked a series of questions. First, the latest UN Security Council resolution—resolution 2268—which confirmed the cessation of hostilities, underlines the importance of a previous one, resolution 2254, which is all about the ability to gain access to various areas where ownership is sometimes confusing. That is done on a very local basis to make sure that agreements take place and that UN and other convoys have the series of permissions they need, so that they are not halted at checkpoints, with the food being taken from them and used as a weapon of war. It is difficult for me to give a comprehensive reply for the whole of Syria, but these things are done on an area-by-area basis. The method for taking deliveries also reflects the threat level. Clearly, there are areas surrounded by Daesh, where it is impossible to have such agreements.
	The hon. Lady spoke about the chemical weapons attack. A number of UN organisations are looking into a wider piece to do with the use of chemical weapons across Syria. They are in the process of completing a report to the UN, which is due shortly. If I may, I will write to her with more details on that.
	On the work being done to provide international humanitarian aid, I go back to the conference we had, where we were able to garner an awful lot of support, including from Saudi Arabia, for making sure that money is filtered through the various UN organisations so that they can get through to the various locations.
	The hon. Lady mentions a number of other extremist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham, and there is Jaysh al-Islam as well. They have not been considered as moderate; they have not been included in the discussions, and they were not represented in the talks where the Saudis brought the moderate groups together.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 1MC.]

Edward Leigh: May I just ask where the Foreign Secretary is? I know he is very busy, but the House of Commons must always come first. We are at least owed an explanation.
	May I suggest that the Labour and Conservative establishments, in being such an outrider for the overthrow of unpleasant authoritarian regimes—whether Gaddafi’s, Assad’s or Saddam’s—have merely provided an opening for far worse, totalitarian movements? It is also arguable that we have had very little influence in the latest round of peace negotiations, as the Americans cosy up to the Russians. Will the Foreign Office now at least accept that there may be some merit in Assad being allowed to go gracefully in elections, however imperfect?

Tobias Ellwood: First, may I say that I will not take it personally that my hon. Friend feels I am not adequate to answer today’s question? This is an urgent question, and the Foreign Secretary was not able to get here. I will certainly do my best to convey to him the fact that my hon. Friend would have loved to see him instead of me.
	On the transition process, we ended 2015, after five years of hostilities, with opposition groups coming together for the first time. For the first time, we had international stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, around the table at the Vienna talks discussing these matters. That was the first time a transition process was discussed, the first time an 18-month process was to be put in place and the first time life after Assad was actually considered.
	It is important to recognise that it must be for all the people of Syria to decide their fate, whether they are Kurds, Druze, Alawites or Sunnis. We must remember that 80% of the deaths in Syria have been caused by Assad and his regime. That is why we say that it would be inappropriate for him to participate in the long-term future of the country. The whole purpose of bringing these organisations together to discuss the democratic process is that they will decide the transition away from Assad.

Alex Salmond: May I join the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), in urging that the correct policy for Her Majesty’s Government is to give every facility to the rapid establishment of a verification regime? We can engage in tit-for-tat allegations about who is breaching what, but this is the only ceasefire we have. The Minister will know that there were reports this morning from Kurdish forces about our NATO ally using the ceasefire as an opportunity to build up forces against them, so the establishment of the verification regime is key.
	Will the Minister tell us in more detail about the urgency of attempts to bring in humanitarian relief? Which convoys have been allowed through and which have been stopped? Which airstrikes have been successful and which have not? Given the overwhelming urgency of the humanitarian crisis, the House would appreciate it if the Minister could find a way to provide Members with exact detail on that.

Tobias Ellwood: I have gone into some detail about the urgency of the humanitarian relief work. This is partly why a cessation of hostilities was needed. In places such as Madaya, people have resorted to eating pets, such is their plight. Thanks to the agreement between Lavrov and John Kerry at the Munich security conference, which led to discussions between Putin and President Obama, we have seen this build-up of a cessation of hostilities. I was cautiously optimistic when I saw President Putin make a rare live appearance on Russian television stating his commitment to ensuring that a cessation of hostilities came about.
	However, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, experience shows that whenever a deadline is put into a ceasefire or cessation of hostilities, there is then an effort by hardliners—by opportunists—to take advantage of the period before the deadline comes into force to gain territory, to further their lines and to make a greater impact, so that when the hostilities cease they are in a stronger position. That is exactly what we have seen in this case. We require every country, whether it be Turkey, Russia or Assad’s regime, to hold fast—to recognise that the world is watching and that although the humanitarian situation is absolutely dire, there is an international community that wants to help and can do so only if it has access to the various areas that I have articulated.

Tobias Ellwood: I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes very clear, as I have, the atrocities that Assad has inflicted. That is why we believe there is no long-term place for his involvement. What has happened is the recognition that there needs to be a very clear transition process. We should not just be talking about Assad. Assad and his cohorts—his family and so forth—have a firm grip on the top of the regime. It is simply not possible to remove the individual man and then assume that life can move on; it is far more complex than that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.
	We should also recognise—though this is no excuse for Russia’s behaviour—that Russia has had a long-term interest in the country since 1946, when it started to train the new Syrian army after Syria gained its independence. Syria backed the Soviets during the cold war. Assad’s father trained as a MiG pilot in Russia. There is a bond between the country that we cannot ignore, and that is why Russia is there, but we need it to use its influence in a positive way. We need Russia to recognise the damage Assad has done and the fact that the people of Syria deserve better than this. When I say “the people of Syria”, I mean all of Syria, not just one particular grouping or sectarian area.

Tobias Ellwood: The point about the 70,000 moderates has been raised before. The figure is an estimate. We should understand that this is a very divided group of people who have been standing up to Assad since the Arab spring. They are the pockets of resistance that had a choice, when Assad started to bomb and kill his own people, either to go extremist—to go fundamentalist—or to say, “No, I want something different. I do not want to be part of the Ba’ath party in the future; I want the freedoms that I am seeing develop in other parts of the Arab world.” They are disparate. They are in Aleppo in the north, through to Idlib, through to parts of Damascus, and down to Daraa in the south. Those pockets of people have stood up, and they have now come together by participating in the Geneva talks that are taking place thanks to the leadership of Saudi Arabia. So yes, they are not united in the sense that we would like them to be, but we are moving forward, and they now need to be part of the process that works out what the country looks like post-Assad.

Tobias Ellwood: On the first point, there is no point in saying so now, but many of us will look back at how different life would have been, and how things would have changed, had we taken different action on a punitive strike. The reason why Assad is back in play now is that Russia has backed him. He was falling—we were seeing his slow demise—and Russia came back in to support its person. That is why we are in the position that we are in today.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks a very relevant question that is slightly outside the scope of this subject, but with your permission, Mr Speaker, I will say that we are cautiously optimistic and welcome what has happened in Tehran. There are only early results yet, but with the moderates in the Assembly of Experts and in the Majlis itself, this is the first opportunity for the people of Iran to have a say in the future of their country.
	However, Iran will be judged by its actions because of its proxy involvement with Hezbollah in Lebanon, in Damascus in Syria, in Baghdad in Iraq, in Sana’a in Yemen, and in Bahrain. If we see changes there, we will know that we are working with a different Iran, but until then we should expect the same.

Seema Kennedy: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) for raising this issue. Following John Kerry’s statement that it may be too late to keep Syria whole, will the Minister update the House on any conversations he has had with his American counterpart on the possible partition of Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: I can confirm the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question. The rules of engagement that we follow are very robust indeed. As I said in my opening remarks, we estimate that more than 1,300 civilians have been killed either by Russia or by Russian-supported airstrikes, and another 5,800 have been injured.

Tobias Ellwood: The coalition does a lot of planning in order to establish the best mechanism to provide aid relief in any particular area. The RAF itself has not been involved in airdrops per se; the United States has been leading on that. As I have said, they have had a marginal effect. They are subject to weather conditions and to who is on the ground to receive the actual aid. It is then a matter of luck as to how that aid is distributed. Often it is unfairly distributed, because the strongest end up grabbing the kit and taking it away with them. That is why the preferred mechanism is to get permission to go through the various checkpoints and deliver the aid by truck.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 2MC.]

Thomas Tugendhat: May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), who has done a lot of work on this issue over the past few months—and, indeed, over many years in her previous incarnation—and to the Minister, who has done an awful lot of work in the region? We have spoken a lot about the pressures that the Russians have brought to bear on the legitimate opposition to the Assad regime. Could he also tell us about the pressures they have brought to bear on our allies in the region, and what he is doing, working with the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Jordanians and, indeed, the Turks, to ensure that we deliver a peaceful solution for Syria, not a wasteland made by Russian bombs?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to mention the impact that the situation in Syria is having on its neighbours. We should all pay tribute to the generosity of countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which have taken in so many refugees. The whole House will appreciate and support the fact that much of the funds we provide are going to those other countries as well.
	One of the major changes that took place at the Syrian conference was that to employment opportunities for Syrian refugees so that they are not a burden on domestic employment situations. That happened partly because of the funding that is coming through and the opportunities being created by other countries. We are doing our best to make sure that Turkey plays its role—which is complicated, given its relationship with the Kurds—in moderating its actions and making sure that the cessation of hostilities lasts.

John Woodcock: Russia’s aggression and flagrant violations of international law in a number of areas have strained and limited bilateral relations over recent years, and yet the Government say that they are urging Russia to play a more constructive role in the Syria conflict. Will the Minister outline the ways in which the Government have contact with the Russian Federation at present?

Philip Hollobone: The most credible and consistently effective ground forces against Daesh in both Syria and Iraq are our friends the Kurds, and yet time and again our NATO ally Turkey uses any excuse, including the present ceasefire, to attack and degrade them. When will Her Majesty’s Government take this issue seriously, call in the Turkish ambassador and say that that behaviour is simply not acceptable on any level, that we will not be able to defeat Daesh in Syria and Iraq without the Kurds, and that Turkey needs seriously to think again?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend articulates the complexity of the challenge we face in Syria, with so many moving parts, organisations and entities pursuing separate agendas, which makes it very difficult indeed. The situation between Turkey and the PKK—which is a listed terrorist group, including from a British perspective—is recognised by this House, and we encourage Turkey to recognise and honour the cessation of hostilities. I join my hon. Friend in recognising the incredible work that the Kurds in Iraq have done in order to hold back Daesh and liberate territory. They will play a pivotal role in the eventual liberation of Mosul, which will be significant for Iraq to move on to a new chapter.

Tobias Ellwood: I can confirm that Turkey does not purchase oil from Daesh. Black market oil is moved along the porous border—there is no doubt about that—and every effort is made, including by Turkey, to make sure that that is cut down. We should not forget that only a few weeks ago Daesh committed a terrible attack in Istanbul, so Turkey is as committed as everybody else to participating in the coalition’s efforts to defeat Daesh.

Kevin Foster: After five years of death and destruction, I welcome the fact that there is finally a ceasefire and some hope for the future. Given the extent of the war crimes and the brutality that have marked out the war, can the Minister reassure me that an individual’s involvement in the transitional process will not give them immunity from later facing justice?

Craig Whittaker: If the cessation of hostilities holds, and continues to hold, will my hon. Friend explain what impact he thinks it will have on the flow of displaced people within Syria, and on Syrian refugees? Can he elaborate—this may be a little premature—on the role that Britain could play in making sure that Syrian refugees can return home?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for the question, because it allows me to speak about the success of the Syrian conference that took place a couple of weeks ago in London. In a single day, we gained a record amount of pledges—$11 billion—from across the world. That is important in ensuring that the Syrian people recognise that the international community is ready to support them. Once they see that the cessation of hostilities is likely to last and that a political transition is likely to take place, they will make the decision not to turn their back on their own country—not to flee their country to try to find a better life in Europe.

Robert Jenrick: May I draw the Minister’s attention to the reports from the very few international journalists on the ground in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria that many people, particularly the rebels who are fighting against the regime, are not in favour of the ceasefire precisely because they believe that the regime and Russia will use it to take ground by stealth? That only emphasises the importance of getting aid into those communities and holding the regime to account.
	May I take this opportunity to make a request of the Minister and the Government? As we have moved into territory previously held by Daesh, we have discovered at least 35 mass graves in those communities. The UK is a world leader in forensic technology and specialists, and many groups such as the Aegis Trust would like the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to fund and encourage those forensic experts to get on the ground, where it is safe to do so, and uncover and record the terrible crimes of Daesh and the Syrian regime.

Tobias Ellwood: I think it is best to avoid discussion of a plan B. We need to make this work, because the situation has gone on for too long. I began by saying that we are now in our sixth year. There is a recognition that the international community is coming together around the table for the first time. We have not previously had a situation in which Iran and Saudi Arabia—and, indeed, Russia and the United States—have been at the table. We are facing a number of difficulties and complexities, but that should not mean that we do not try to find solutions for the stability of Syria in the longer term.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker, a dydd gwyl Dewi hapus iawn i chi. Happy St David’s day. Yesterday, Reuters reported that two weeks ago in Brussels, Defence Ministers in the US-led coalition met to discuss ground operations against Daesh. Will the Minister update the House on those negotiations?

Tobias Ellwood: Huge success has been achieved and huge progress made in Iraq. We were able to create an indigenous capability. We were able to support and build an Iraqi force, which was able to liberate Ramadi. The next step will be the liberation of Mosul. The work that the Peshmerga is now doing—again, with British assistance—is working well. We are stopping the movement of funding to Daesh as well. Daesh is being squeezed. The consequence of that, which we should be concerned about, is that as we squeeze Daesh in Iraq and Syria, it is starting to pop up in other parts of the world, not least in Libya. We need to be aware of that.

Points of Order

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are the foremost guardian of the convention that the House of Commons must come first. My hon. Friend the Minister is a most charming and able Minister, but I have asked him why the Foreign Secretary is not here. I quite understand—he is a very busy man—if he is abroad or ill, but surely we must establish the convention that when there is an urgent question or a statement, unless it deals with a particular, small part of a Department, the Secretary of State should be here. I would hope that you make that clear to Departments.

Tom Watson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Happy St David’s day. Yesterday, in a majestic performance at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General confirmed to the House that Cabinet Ministers who oppose the European Union and support a no vote in the referendum can get access to Government documents on the EU referendum if they use the Freedom of Information Act. Today, we read on the front page of the Daily Mail that the Paymaster General is going to scrap the commission looking at the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Speaker, have you had notice from the Paymaster General that he is seeking to make a statement to the House to explain the very unusual behaviour of the Government in shelving their own commission?

Mr Speaker: I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have received no such indication that any Minister has any such intention. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter of ongoing interest. He and others, who are notably terrier-like and indefatigable in pursuit of their ends, will require no encouragement from me to deploy such parliamentary devices as are available to secure the matter further attention, if that is what they want.
	If there are no further points of order—the House’s palate has been satisfied on that front, at any rate for today—we can move to the presentation of a Bill.

John Hayes: rose—

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Investigatory Powers Bill

Devolution (Bank Holidays) (Wales)

Mark Williams: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to devolve to Welsh Ministers responsibility for the determination of specified bank holidays in Wales; and for connected purposes.
	I am lucky enough to be bringing this issue before the House on St David’s day, when people throughout Wales and the diaspora throughout the UK and indeed the world will be celebrating the life of Dewi Sant and our Welsh cultural identity. May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everybody, dydd gwyl Dewi hapus—happy St David’s day?
	St David or Dewi Sant is a renowned and inspirational figure in Wales. He was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout much of western Britain. He was the Archbishop of Wales, and was a fundamental figure in the establishment of religion in our country. He had particular links to my constituency, being the grandson of King Ceredig, the founder of the kingdom of Ceredigion, while his mother, Saint Non, was born in the village of Llanon. It is said that St David was educated at the Henfynyw monastery, near the village of Ffos-y-ffin, in the centre of Ceredigion. It was in the village of Llanddewi Brefi in 550 AD, at a raucous meeting of the synod of the Welsh church, that David, finding it difficult to make himself heard, placed a cloth on the ground and the earth rose to form a mound on which he could stand and preach. That miracle of St David put the village of Llanddewi Brefi on the map long before the contemporary Dafydd of “Little Britain” fame.
	It should therefore be no surprise that the calls for making St David’s day a public holiday in Wales are particularly strong in my constituency. His contribution to Wales cannot and should not be ignored. Today, many people will publicly celebrate dydd Dewi Sant in my constituency and throughout Wales, with celebratory parades, school pupils wearing traditional Welsh costumes, the singing of Welsh songs and the recitation of poetry. People will take part in eisteddfodau and cymanfaoedd canu—singing festivals—displaying some of Wales’s rich cultural traditions. We will see celebrations of Welsh culture in London, with children from the London Welsh School, the London Welsh Centre and the Wales in London group doing their bit to promote Wales and the life of Dewi Sant. The St David’s day service in St Mary Undercroft ended a few moments ago, and I am glad to see that the House of Commons catering department has risen to the occasion by providing fabulous Welsh cuisine procured from Wales, which I would encourage all hon. Members to experience.
	It is no coincidence that I am using this opportunity to pursue the issue of devolving the power to set public holidays on this very important day for Wales. The issue of St David’s day and the ability of Wales to designate public holidays has been raised many times over many years by many people from across the political spectrum. I raised it in a Westminster Hall debate in 2011, and that was followed in the same year by the introduction by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) of a Bill to make St George’s day and St David’s day public holidays in England and Wales respectively.
	I want to make it clear that the Bill does not ask the House to authorise or designate St David’s day as a public holiday, however much I hope it will become one, but, in the spirit of devolution, to ensure that our Senedd—our Assembly—has the powers to decide that matter. Despite the numerous calls to devolve this power, that has not yet come to pass, unfortunately, despite the fact that responsibility for public holidays is devolved to Scotland and that St Patrick’s day has been a public holiday in Ireland since 1903. St Patrick’s day has been used to build Ireland’s profile and to encourage tourism, which has provided a huge boost to its economy.
	The Irish Government specifically set up the St Patrick’s festival group, which has aimed to make the celebration one of the finest in the world, to encourage innovation and creativity, to provide the opportunity for those of Irish descent to become involved and to project a positive, forward-looking image of Ireland to the rest of the world. Should such a power be devolved and should the Welsh Government make St David’s day a public holiday, there is every reason to believe that our national festival could be very proactively marketed throughout the world in a more robust way than it has been to date. It would provide a fantastic opportunity for a small country such as ours to make its mark, and it seems preposterous to me that the Senedd cannot make such a decision.
	I acknowledge that there have been some concerns from parts of the business community about the possible designation of St David’s day as a public holiday, but that should not stop us giving the responsibility to Wales for the Welsh Government to consult on it and come to a considered decision. We could follow the precedent of Scotland. St Andrew’s day was designated a bank holiday by the Scottish Parliament in the St Andrew’s Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007. At the time, concerns were raised about the possible negative impact that devolving the power would have on businesses and the Scottish economy, but they seem to have been unfounded. It would be a very strange state of affairs if anybody called for that to be reversed. After consultation, the Scottish Government chose to allow banks to decide whether to close on St Andrew’s day and companies to decide whether to observe it as a public holiday. There has since been growing calls and growing support for companies to recognise the holiday fully. Critically, that decision was taken in Scotland.
	In Wales, we have similar levels of support for creating a new public holiday. A poll taken at the time of the Scottish decision showed that 87% of people in Wales wanted St David’s day to become a bank holiday. Some 65% of those surveyed stated that they were willing to sacrifice another bank holiday to see St David’s day officially designated. Indeed, my thanks should go to ITV Wales, which in highlighting the Bill has undertaken an online poll. As of 10 o’clock this morning, over 90% of respondents agree that St David’s day should be a bank holiday.
	Such support is also seen in all of the parties in the National Assembly, many of whom made manifesto commitments to have the power devolved, and others who provided evidence to the Silk commission called for the power to be given to the Senedd. From the very beginning of the life of the National Assembly, Welsh political opinion, as well as growing public opinion, has been united in its call for St David’s day to become a public holiday.
	In 2011, it looked as though the UK Government might finally, as part of their tourism strategy—after pressure, I would candidly suggest, from the Liberal Democrats—consider giving the Welsh Assembly the power to move the spring bank holiday from early May to 1 March. However, nothing came of that, despite great political support for it in Wales. The Welsh Government wrote to the Wales Office in 2013 to call for the power to be devolved, but they were rebuffed, apparently by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Despite public and political support rivalling the support shown in Scotland, such calls have continued to fall on deaf ears, with successive UK Governments refusing to consider devolving the power to Wales.
	If the power continues to be reserved to Westminster, it seems unlikely that St David’s day will become a public holiday any time soon, despite the huge support for that in our country. Is it not now time for the Welsh people to be able to decide whether it is right that St David’s day becomes a public holiday in Wales, rather than that being decided—and rejected—in Whitehall? With only eight public holidays in the UK and in Wales, we have among the fewest of any country in the world. Wales should be able to choose whether to create a new public holiday or to replace it with another. I feel that that decision should be made, through our Senedd, by the people of Wales.
	Let me finish by repeating the words of Dewi Sant:
	“Do the little things that you have seen me do and heard about. I will walk the path that our fathers have trod before us.”
	“Do the little things” or “Gwnewch y pethau bychain” has become a well-known phrase in Wales, and this is all that many of us in Wales are asking for. We are asking for Wales to be given the power that others already have—the power for Wales to choose whether and how to make St David’s day a public holiday, and to celebrate his life and our Welsh national identity how we choose. With this Bill, we would be able to do those little things that could have a very big impact on Wales. I urge the House to support this call.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Mark Williams, Gerald Jones, Liz Saville Roberts, Hywel Williams, Jonathan Edwards, Huw Irranca-Davies, Albert Owen, John Pugh and Carolyn Harris present the Bill.
	Mr Mark Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 145).

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

ESTIMATES 2015-16
	 — 
	FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
	 — 
	The FCO and the Spending Review 2015

[Relevant Documents: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, HC 467, and the Government response, HC 816.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2016, for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
	(1) the resources authorised for use for current purposes be reduced by £20,292,000 as set out in HC 747,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £37,171,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £16,879,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to open the first estimates day debate of the new Parliament, and I thank the Liaison Committee for selecting the first report of the Foreign Affairs Committee for debate.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Committee in the last Parliament and to my predecessor, Sir Richard Ottaway. I was lucky to have him as a parliamentary neighbour for 18 years and can well understand why he was so widely regarded across the panoply of the Foreign Office establishment and those interested in foreign and Commonwealth affairs for the way in which he led the Committee in the last Parliament.
	One of the Committee’s final reports in the last Parliament, which was published in February 2015 only weeks before Parliament was dissolved, took a detailed look at the impact of cuts on the Foreign Office budget resulting from the 2010 spending review. It accepted that the Foreign Office needed to play its part in the general retrenchment instigated by the review and believed that Foreign Office Ministers and senior managers had, on the whole, played a difficult hand skilfully. However, it concluded:
	“The cuts imposed on the FCO since 2010 have been severe and have gone beyond just trimming fat: capacity now appears to be being damaged. The next Government needs to protect future FCO budgets under the next Spending Review…If further cuts are imposed, the UK’s diplomatic imprint and influence would probably reduce, and the Government would need to roll back some of its foreign policy objectives.”
	I remind the House that the reduction imposed on the Foreign Office in the four-year period ending in March 2015 amounted to 24% of its resource budget. However, the majority of the savings came from what amounted to a conjuring trick. Funding for the BBC World Service was transferred from the Foreign Office to the licence fee payer from 1 April 2014. At a stroke, the Foreign Office’s apparent budget was reduced by £240 million and the cuts that it had to make to its own budget through savings amounted to just 10%.
	Even though the real reduction was just 10% over the four years, it is hard to find anyone who does not believe that the FCO’s capacity was damaged in the process. Our predecessors described the Foreign Office as a machine stretched to the limit, with key posts left unfilled because staff of the necessary calibre were needed for more immediate crises; overseas posts at junior levels lost, reducing the opportunity for staff to accumulate the experience that is essential for service at higher levels within the organisation; and reductions in UK-based staff at many overseas posts, denying those who remained time to leave the diplomatic bubble and gather a sense of the real currents in society around the country in which they served.
	Overall, the headcount of UK-based staff has reduced by 10% between 2011 and now, which seems perverse at a time when the Department has been under such policy pressure and suffered such overstretch. To some degree, the reduction in UK-based staff was mitigated by the recruitment of locally engaged staff who, in many cases, have brought a depth of local knowledge that it would be difficult for a London-based employee ever to acquire. However, many of them happen to be British people who are based overseas and then formally become locally engaged staff. Although the average cost of such people is one third of UK-based staff, it is not a straight saving, because such replacements do not come at zero cost. I have already heard troubling reports of unintended consequences arising from such things as locally engaged staff not being cleared to the same security level as UK-based staff.
	To use Tunisia as an example in advance of the Committee’s visit to Cairo and Tunis next week, I applaud the FCO’s swift consular response to the terrorist attack in Sousse in June 2015, but I have heard that the subsequent counter-terrorism analysis was complicated by a lack of UK-based staff who were cleared to the necessary level. That analysis was of great significance, because it will have played a role in the FCO’s decision to advise against all but essential travel to the entire country—a country where tourism contributes directly and indirectly to a large proportion of GDP and is a major source of foreign currency. Tunisia is a fragile country that has undergone its fair share of volatility since it sparked the Arab spring, and we all have an interest in nurturing its continued stability.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have made that point before and will make it again in respect of the inquiry we are conducting into the intervention in Libya. Just how deep was the knowledge on the basis of which we decided to intervene? It is the depth of knowledge that has been lost.
	Another price that is being paid is that locally engaged staff do not really understand the UK context. It has been put to me that the quality of the reports that are coming through is not quite what it was because they are not addressed to the needs of the Ministers at whom they are aimed. The difficulty is that very overstretched UK-based staff in a post are, in addition, having to oversee the work of the locally engaged employees.
	Returning to the issue of Tunisia, I accept that the security of our citizens must be a Government priority and that they cannot commend travel unless they have confidence that our citizens will be reasonably safe, but this decision had serious consequences for Tunisia’s stability and the security of the region. We must therefore be completely confident that we can make informed decisions, rather than simply defensive decisions because of an absence of capability.
	Reports are, of course, the standard mechanism by which Select Committees express their views. I believe that Committees can miss opportunities by not getting inside the decision making cycle, or by devoting our energies to conducting retrospective analyses after policy has been formed and executed. The Government should welcome input at an early stage from an informed, cross-party Committee that could make practical, forward-looking suggestions, rather than just telling the Government where they went wrong.
	We published our report on the Budget in October last year, almost exactly a month before the spending review, and we made just one recommendation:
	“We recommend that the Treasury protect the FCO budget for the period covered by the 2015 Spending Review, with a view to increasing rather than cutting the funds available to support the diplomatic work on which the country’s security and prosperity depend.”
	I am delighted that our recommendations were accepted, and that the settlement reflected our central recommendation.
	We spent much of our first few evidence sessions looking at how the Foreign Office was preparing for the spending review, and at what scope there was for it to absorb further cuts of the scale already imposed over the previous four years. The Foreign Secretary gave oral evidence twice, and we tried to get a sense of his priorities and what he would seek to preserve. We then took evidence from Sir Simon McDonald, the new permanent under-secretary, and his senior management team, to try to understand the grit and detail of what might be achieved and how if—God forbid—savings of 25% or even 40% were required. That gloomy environment perhaps reflected our rather defensive recommendation, which was obviously designed to hold the current position, but the Committee clearly believes that more resources are needed to support our diplomacy.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. He sat on the Committee in the last Parliament and in this one, and he will know about the diminution of our expertise, for example on Russia. When he and I were soldiers back in the 1980s there was a wealth of expertise about the Soviet Union, but that has simply been stripped away. When faced with a crisis in Crimea and Ukraine, the level and depth of our knowledge were certainly a handicap.
	When looking at future Committee reports and how we might influence future events, I hope that we will be able to report with authority and fulfil a much requested public need about Brexit. The Committee is conducting an inquiry into the costs and benefits of European Union membership for Britain’s role in the world—whether we stay in the EU or whether we leave. Hon. Members will already have found that people are asking where they can turn for independent analysis and who will give them the facts. Unhappily, the Government have placed themselves in a position where they are unable to give an independent view, since the entire institution is placed firmly on one side of the campaign. Happily, however, I preside over a Committee of 11, and the publicly expressed views of my Committee are balanced at five each on either side of the question.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that that is precisely what my Committee will try to do. Given the way that we are exquisitely balanced, my aim, which is informally supported in discussion by members of the Committee—they cannot be formally bound until the Committee reports, but we all share the objective—is to produce as balanced a piece of work as possible, identifying the factors that the electorate should consider on both sides of the question, but without advising the electorate what weight they should attach to those factors. I hope to complete that work about two months before the referendum, and for the Committee to do a service to the wider public of exactly the type that my hon. Friend identifies, as well as to this House and the reputation of its Committees.

Crispin Blunt: It has, and I have already attended that Committee’s first meeting. It is being excellently chaired by the hon. Gentleman—I forget his constituency, which will not help me much, but I have every confidence in the new Chair of that Committee, and when I recall his constituency, I will inform the House.

Crispin Blunt: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we look forward with interest to the motivation of the Scottish National party, and how it will vote, given its differing attitudes to the differing Unions in which Scotland finds itself.
	Anyone attending this debate might ask why, if the Foreign Office was one of the winners from the spending review—or at least not a loser—we have sought this debate. My reply is that no one should underestimate the scale of the challenges that the UK and its allies are facing in the world today. Even with a protected budget, the Foreign Office will struggle to address those challenges. Of course we have a range of capabilities to deal with direct threats to our national security, including armed forces, diplomacy, economic policy, cyber-operations, and covert means, but in terms of sheer value for money, it is diplomacy, and the capacity to bring crises to a peaceful resolution in partnership with others, that must be the preferred solution. A diplomatic solution to a crisis, rather than one that descends into the use of armed force saves an absolute fortune, as well as avoiding the huge humanitarian cost that accompanies a failure to preserve the peace. It is my view that we should increase the Foreign Office budget to enhance that capacity and help to head off crises before they flare up.
	The threats to the UK’s security and wellbeing are at an unprecedented level. As we said in our report, we cannot recall a more complex and challenging policy-making environment in recent decades—an environment that includes Syria, Daesh, Libya, Russia, the South China sea, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, Iran and Turkey, to name but a few.
	That is before we take into account the requirements of the other two pillars of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: the agenda for prosperity and consular services. In its response to our report, the Office acknowledges that there will be
	“new work, including increasing spending on the Overseas Territories and hosting the presidency of the EU in 2017.”
	That might be an interesting presidency if we are on the way out after 23 June.
	Inexplicably, however, the Government’s response says nothing about potentially the greatest call on its resources: a British exit from the European Union. If the country votes out on 23 June, a huge effort will be needed to disentangle the United Kingdom from its existing commitments and to work on new trade arrangements, to name but one element of the work that will need to be undertaken. A very large part of that effort will fall on the Foreign Office, yet the Committee has found little or no evidence that the British civil service is making any sort of contingency plan in the event of a Brexit. We now have a date for the referendum, and Brexit is not a remote possibility but a very real prospect in the hands of the electorate and the competing campaigns. I therefore urge Ministers and their officials to begin planning, and not just in outline, for the consequences of a decision by the British people to leave the European Union. It would not just be a question of drafting in a few extra people to prepare new treaties. We will need to strengthen our bilateral relationships by increasing our presence in larger EU member states, reopening subordinate posts that have been closed or downgraded over the last five years, and picking up capabilities, particularly trade capabilities, that are currently the competence of the European Union. We should at least understand what the bill will be and prepare to address it if it happens.

Yasmin Qureshi: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about increasing the number of personnel do deal with Brexit, the Committee recently said that about a quarter of staff in the middle east, eastern Europe and central Asia do not have the requisite language skills, and that the number of people who have those language skills is decreasing. That is another way in which the strength of the Foreign Office to deal with international issues is being reduced.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right—she understands those issues extremely well from her work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and more widely before joining it. That loss of language skills is partly a reflection of just how stretched the FCO is in getting people to the right place, and getting the best people into vacancies to cover the policy challenges we face. An office that is not stretched so tautly has the capacity to get the language skills of its staff up to the necessary standard. Until now, those skills have been the envy of every other diplomatic service in the world. In the last Parliament, it was the priority of William Hague as Foreign Secretary to address that. Serious measures were put in place to try to do so, but the evidence the Committee is taking shows that if it is getting better, it is doing so in a minute way that does not reflect the need for real improvement. That reflects just how tautly the office is being managed under the current budget conditions.
	There will be more pressure on the capital budget than usual. The Government response to our report points out that the Foreign Office capital budget will remain “flat”. It says that the FCO will need to fund requirements that cannot be met from the capital budget by disposing of assets, and warns that it may need to call on the Treasury reserve for some large projects. The Foreign Office quite rightly is expected to achieve value for money when disposing of assets, but the ability to do so will partly depend on market forces. As we know from the FCO supplementary estimate, it has already had to call on the Treasury reserve to cover a shortfall that it says is
	“due to adverse market conditions in the Far East”.
	The FCO IT system, Firecrest, is failing and presents a serious operational risk. Major investment is needed, but that has been stalled during the spending review process. The FCO is going to have to fund its tech overhaul programme from its existing budget: difficult choices will have to be made on procurement, bearing in mind the need for resilience and the particular security requirements of the Department. Careful project management will be needed, and I can only point out that the whole of the public service does not exactly have a shining record in that field. I hope the Foreign Office can help to redress that.
	My second key point concerns official development assistance expenditure and the need to rationalise resource allocation. The Committee highlights in the report our uneasiness at the consequences of depending ever more on expenditure that qualifies as official development assistance, and which therefore scores against the Government’s commitment to invest at least 0.7% of gross national income in international development. That risks, and indeed is, skewing the Department’s expenditure away from countries that are not eligible for ODA spending, regardless of where our foreign policy interests lie. For instance, 97% of the funds available under the new human rights funding programme, the Magna Carta fund, are for spending in ODA-eligible countries. When we queried that in oral evidence with the Minister and her officials, we were given the impression that there was some flexibility to divert funding towards non-ODA countries, but we need clear answers. Trying to replace the significant sums the Government have put forward for human rights in the Magna Carta fund with very constrained bilateral funds will not wash. It would be quite unacceptable and counterproductive for human rights programme funding to be virtually denied in non-ODA-eligible countries such as Russia and Israel, and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. I hope the Minister can give me some reassurance on that point.
	Human rights expenditure is not the only example of how ODA eligibility can determine the Foreign Office’s activities. The current chief operating officer, Deborah Bronnert, told us that the Foreign Office’s non-ODA budget was under particular pressure, and that if there were to be cutbacks in the overseas network, it would have to look first at cutbacks in subordinate posts in developed countries. It hardly plays well with our prosperity agenda if that is where we need to go in terms of our trade and economic relations.
	The British Council, which plays a unique role in promoting an understanding by different peoples and nations of what the UK can offer, faces the possibility of losing all grant in aid for work in countries that are not ODA-eligible. It is looking to cross-subsidise to some extent from other areas of its operation, but the net effect is a decline of our soft power and influence in several growing economies and countries, not least where there are political and human rights concerns.
	I have similar concerns about the move within the Government to more pooled funding between Departments. The conflict, stability and security fund, which is currently worth £1.033 billion per year, will increase to £1.33 billion by 2019-20, and a new prosperity fund is being created, worth £1.3 billion. Substantial sums of money have been allocated following a process of negotiation between Departments, and I welcome the concept of a more holistic and integrated approach to funding where Departments are working in different ways towards the same ultimate aims, but the Committee should look carefully at how the FCO fares, for instance when sharing the conflict, stability and security fund with two Departments whose budgets as a proportion of total Government expenditure are both protected.
	Finally, the Foreign Office delayed its response to our report until it had received its settlement letter from the Treasury, but I was disappointed that the FCO did not supply the settlement letter, which I understand sets out more detail of the sums available to the Foreign Office from year to year within the period covered by the spending review. In fact, none of the departmental settlement letters has been published. At the moment, we just have rounded figures for budgets for 2015-16 to 2019-20, without any lower-level detail. Will the Minister therefore undertake to supply the Foreign Office settlement letter to the Committee, so that we may publish it and place that essential information in the public domain?
	My conclusion relates to the shape of the Foreign Office in the years to come. In his letter responding to our report, the Foreign Secretary said:
	“There is more that can be done to strengthen the FCO and build up its world class capabilities. To help achieve this, I have commissioned an internal review of the FCO exploring how we can be more expert, agile and focused on our key priorities. The review will set out a vision of the organisation the FCO should be by 2020.”
	I invite the Minister to tell us a little more about that review. Will it be a fundamental review of how the Foreign Office is structured, how priorities are ordered and how staff are deployed; or will it be a motherhood and apple pie statement of vision and aims, full of things no one could disagree with?
	In conclusion, the Office remains overstretched and underfunded for the tasks it faces. Its actual funding base is dysfunctional, and if it does not actually distort policy decisions, it certainly means that resource allocation is no longer aligned with actual British interests.

Pete Wishart: I am going to do something very unusual, very different and possibly subversive here today with this speech. On one of the days set aside for the consideration of the estimates of this House, I am going to actually speak about estimates. When I was researching my contribution, the one thing I was told that I must not do was to raise the issue of estimates during estimates day debates. What other House in the world would have such an absurd principle of debate? What other modern Parliament would even start to consider doing its business on the basis of such an absurd and ridiculous ruling?
	Estimates are not about the allocation of pencils and rulers to the civil service, or even the price of beer in Strangers Bar. The estimates process is this House having to give its authority to the Government’s spending plans. This is what we are doing, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 of this House, in the three days that we have been given to debate the three large estimates documents I have here. However, they are the one thing we are not supposed to debate! This is absolutely and utterly absurd and bizarre, and it has to change. This cannot go on. Something as important as this has to be considered.
	How did we get here? Two centuries ago, the House actually debated and considered every single estimate in the House. Every piece of departmental spend was debated to the nth degree, considered and voted on. Now, we do absolutely nothing. This House has abrogated its responsibility for looking at departmental spend, and that is utterly unsustainable.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a most important point. When I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—I am now a member of the Procedure Committee— I produced a report for the Chancellor on this. What the hon. Gentleman says is quite true and he is doing a great service to the House. The fact is that we spend £600 billion of the people’s money every year, but the one thing we are not allowed to talk about on estimates days is estimates. The hon. Gentleman is therefore making a fundamentally important point. When the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) tried to talk about estimates on an estimates day a couple of years ago, unbelievably he was ruled out of order. You have the power now, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that on estimates days we are allowed to talk about estimates. You can give the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) authority to carry on giving his speech.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just ask how I, or any other hon. Member, can question the Government on £600 billion of expenditure? By the way, under the Barnett formula what we spend directly affects the spend in Scotland. How can I start giving a speech about all this money we are spending?

Natascha Engel: As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has been here a very long time—there are Treasury questions, Budget day, parliamentary questions, letters to Ministers, Adjournment debates and so on. There are any number of avenues by which these matters can be debated. Today, we are debating Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on this particular estimates day.
	With that, I think that is enough. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire wants me to rule him out of order I can do so, but if he can just stick to the FCO expenditure and bring his points in under that he will remain in order.

Pete Wishart: I will give it one last bash, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us hope we can make a little bit more progress. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right. This House has to be given the opportunity to debate this. It is critically and crucially important. If we cannot do it on days set aside for estimates, we have to determine when and how we can do it. If I can just explain why this is important, you can rule me out of order all you want, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is important for us in the Scottish National party because we have been invited by the Government, by the Leader of the House, to investigate, debate and look at the estimates process to determine the issues around Barnett consequentials, which you and Mr Speaker have to rule—

Pete Wishart: indicated dissent.

John Baron: There is an old Army adage, which has served the British Army well, that says time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. I suggest that it could serve the Government well going forward when it comes to expenditure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	Cuts to the Office by previous Governments on both sides of the House have led to staff shortages, which have contributed to a series of errors that have cost us dear. On the one hand, I congratulate the Government on protecting the budget in real terms; that is a backstop we have not had hitherto and is very much to be welcomed. At the same time, I urge the Government to look to increase the budget in real terms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) has eloquently suggested. If the Government seriously think that cost savings in this area work, I would suggest that all the evidence shows that to be a false economy indeed, and for a variety of reasons.
	First and foremost, the false economy does not reflect the importance of how we make foreign policy in this country. That is in contrast to the United States, where foreign policy making is much more of a diffuse process, with academics, career diplomats, think-tanks and politicians all much more widely involved. In this country, on the other hand, the pyramid is much narrower and policy making is structured and put into place by a smaller number of people and organisations—primarily senior people at the top of the FCO, senior people at No. 10 and perhaps a few others. It is therefore terribly important that all the components of our foreign policy making are firing on all cylinders, because if a particular part is not working, given the smaller number of components in the process, that can have a disproportionate effect on overall policy and its consequences.
	There is no shortage of examples showing that we have not done as well as we should have in responding to international crises and other incidents that have perhaps left us floundering. With the Arab spring, for example, there were so few Arabists in the FCO that we had to call them out of retirement. When it came to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, for another example, I think I am right in saying—my right hon. Friend the
	Minister for Europe will correct me if he so wishes—that we did not have one Kremlinologist in the FCO, which perhaps contributed to the somewhat unconvincing response. I suggest to the Government that our interventions over the last 12 years or so have suffered from a lack of analytical skill and expertise, which has been very costly to this country.

John Baron: I made the mistake of not finishing my sentence; next time I will finish it. I was about to say that my examples included Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, I would suggest, Syria. In Iraq, there can be no doubt that we went to war on a false premise: there were no WMD. We were all deceived; the job of Chilcot is to determine whether No. 10 intentionally deceived us.
	On Afghanistan, I supported the initial deployment in 2001 to rid the country of al-Qaeda, and there is strong evidence to suggest that we succeeded in that objective in the very early years. Where it went disastrously wrong—this takes us back to the fact that we did not fully understand events on the ground—was when we allowed the mission to morph into nation-building. We went into Helmand without fully realising what it involved, and we certainly under-resourced our operations, which was a bad mistake.
	In Libya, we knocked down the door—that was the relatively easy bit—but the country has turned out to be a complete and utter shambles, in part because we failed to understand that the opposition to Gaddafi would splinter into 100-plus groups with different objectives. Law and order has been non-existent in Libya ever since, which has led to more bloodshed and a vicious civil war.

John Baron: I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Select Committee member for his kind words. I agree: there does need to be more time for reflection on these issues. I would also suggest that we need greater investment in the FCO. We need greater expertise and analytical skills because we need to make sure that we have analysed a situation correctly. Our system of government performs better when we have a well-informed Executive being questioned by the legislature.
	What we have seen is a series of errors through which it has become increasingly evident that the Executive do not have that expertise to hand. That is one reason why the legislature has raised the bar on military intervention—because it has lacked the trust in the Executive to make their case, analyse a situation correctly and make sound recommendations. Once that trust is lost, the legislature will raise the bar when it comes to military intervention, as we have seen.
	Let me return to some of the other errors that we have made. I suggest that there were errors in Syria. The Government line that we did not intervene early enough on behalf of the rebels, which accounts for the mess that is evident there now, is simply not correct. The Government’s intention was to arm the rebels in the hope that they could keep the weapons confined to the “good” rebels and not allow them to spread to the “bad” rebels—in other words, to track and trace the weapons. Anybody who knows anything about the region, or who has visited the country or travelled through it, should know that everything is tradeable in the bazaar. Also, given that the situation was so fast moving, the idea that we could have stopped the rebels from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra or other extremists was pure make-believe.
	Then, within a couple of years, the Government, having been stopped by the House from intervening in a key vote in 2013, again proposed to intervene—but against the rebels. I would not be so unkind as to suggest that we swapped sides in a civil war within two years, but to the general public, it damn well nearly looks like that. It well illustrates how we have failed to analyse the situation correctly.
	In the brief time left to me, I would argue that in many respects our interventions have been a distraction. I, for one—like many Members on both sides; some are in their places today—have long advocated the need to spend more on defence. The military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indeed Syria have perhaps distracted us from the greater threat of nation states, not necessarily friendly to the west, re-arming and reasserting their power and influence. One thinks immediately of Russia and China, but there are others as well.
	To those who suggest that the straits of Hormuz or the South China seas are far away and of little significance to us, I say that a country based to such an extent on maritime trade—about 90% of our trade comes by sea—would certainly know about it if those straits or seas were ever blocked. My suggestion is that we have been distracted and that that is partly a function of the fact that we are not investing enough in what I call our ears and eyes—in other words, our ability to understand what is happening out there.
	We must have a margin of safety or comfort as regards our capability, because no one can confidently predict where the next trouble spot is going to be. History is littered with examples of our facing the wrong way. I suggest that without that margin of comfort, that margin of safety, in our analytical capability, we may well be caught short again if we have not made the necessary investment. I suggest that, without that investment, we make expensive mistakes—indeed, we have made them—and that it is therefore a false economy to talk about savings, particularly when the budget is so small relative to Government expenditure generally. If I may take the point to the extreme, avoiding unnecessary conflict is vastly cheaper than committing ourselves to conflict that is costly in terms of both lives and treasure.
	We often talk about hard power in the House, but perhaps we do not talk enough about soft power, which is increasingly important. In the present information age, those who win the argument will be just as important as those who win the conflict. This is about a battle of ideas, a battle of ideologies. It is about persuading others to want what we want, rather than just rattling the sabre, which—as we have seen so many times in our recent history—can often be counterproductive. We do not attach enough importance to soft power in this country, certainly not when it comes to the making of foreign policy.
	There are clear examples of our putting our soft power capability at risk. Past cuts to the BBC World Service have hindered our ability to reach out to people; the World Service budget has been transferred from the FCO’s ambit, but that was one example before the transfer.
	An example that currently sits in the FCO is the British Council. That venerable organisation is doing tremendous work in spreading the word, encouraging people to want what we want, providing an educational service, and trying to bring peoples together to improve understanding for the benefit of all concerned, but what are we doing? We are making cuts there. What is the British Council having to do as a result? It is having to become even more commercial in trying to make up for those cuts.
	Members may think that a 10% cut is very little, but given that 10% is sometimes the profit margin, the British Council must achieve a 100% increase in its revenue when engaging in commercial activities to make up for that cut. We, as a country, must think again about short-sightedness of that kind, because it is not serving us well—and, I would argue, not serving the international community well.
	We need to ensure that our ears and eyes are working, because when they are not, we tend to make expensive mistakes in the world. The fact that we have not properly funded our analytical skills and our capabilities, and have not been as well-sighted as we should have been, has certainly contributed—although it has not been the only reason—to a series of errors that have proved exceedingly costly in lives first and foremost, but also in terms of treasure. That brings me back to the point about false economies. It is a false economy to make cuts in our ears and eyes—our Foreign and Commonwealth Office capabilities—if, as a result, we then blunder into interventions that cost us dearly in lives and treasure.
	I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is present. Through him, I urge the Government to increase expenditure on the FCO in real terms. We will be better sighted for it, and will make fewer costly errors.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). He made a very detailed, perceptive and interesting speech, which l thoroughly enjoyed.
	The cut in funding for the Foreign Office, on top of the 10% budget cut since 2010, is directly contrary to the United Kingdom’s key strategic interests, and might prevent the Department from effectively addressing serious organisational issues of its own. We cannot properly address the threats to our security from Daesh solely by dropping bombs in Syria, Libya or Iraq, and threats to our economy from events in China and in the eurozone cannot simply be washed away by the Treasury. We need to equip the FCO not just to meet the challenges of today, but to rise to the unknown challenges of tomorrow. There must be a renewed focus on aid and diplomacy in all that it does.
	A recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, “The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, stated:
	“In an increasingly unstable world, the Government relies on the FCO to have the necessary infrastructure in place so that it can make critical decisions at a moment’s notice. Over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytical capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab Spring and the crisis in Ukraine. In 2010 it might have been thought that expertise on Benghazi, Donetsk, or Raqqa was surplus to requirement. These have become vital areas for our national security, evidencing the real dangers of an under-funded Foreign and Commonwealth Office”.

John Baron: The hon. Lady is making some excellent points, and I would love to remain in the Chamber to listen to the rest of her speech. I promise that I will pursue it in Hansard afterwards. However, my Whips have very thoughtfully put me on to a Statutory Instrument Committee, so would she forgive me if I left her at this point?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. On this occasion, I shall forgive him.
	The FCO must have the capacity to be able to extend further than the issues with which it currently deals from day to day. In a speech to the Institute for Government last year, the outgoing permanent under-secretary at the FCO, Sir Simon Fraser, supported the protection of UK aid spending and the 2% commitment to defence spending, but lamented the fact that the FCO’s relatively small budget would be unprotected in the coming spending review. He described the FCO as
	“the glue that holds everything together”.
	He said that the FCO’s budget arguably deserved protection similar to that given to the larger budgets of the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, whose operations overseas would only stand to benefit from a strong FCO. That being said, the FCO clearly needs to reform its overseas network to stem spiralling costs, particularly in the current climate, when cuts are hitting so many people so hard. At such times, the focus must be on efficiency and efficacy.
	I hope that, when the Minister winds up the debate, he will be kind enough to answer the following questions. What changes will be made to the implementation of Government policy outside the United Kingdom when it spans a range of Departments? Who decides which Department is best placed to co-ordinate joint action between Departments, and how will funding to support that be secured? Will the cuts mean a diminution of the role of the FCO within the Government, and what impact will they have on its continued strategic role in that capacity? Is it not worrying that the United Kingdom’s international role will become further stratified and unbalanced, as Departments such as the MOD and DFID, which have protected budgets, will have a stronger role without the balancing mechanism that the FCO can bring to that work?
	Sir Simon Fraser acknowledged that the issue of human rights was no longer a top priority, and it needs to be re-established as such.
	Let me now say something about what the FCO looks like to the outside world. In the same speech, Sir Simon conceded that, in the past, the FCO’s culture had been
	“too narrow, too white and too male”,
	He argued that that culture had been improved on his watch, but acknowledged that there was still much more to be done to achieve more diversity, in the full sense of the word. Cuts in the Department may threaten progress in the vital area of equality and diversity. There were no women on the shortlist to replace Fraser as permanent under-secretary. He also noted that the FCO had yet to appoint a woman ambassador to its most prestigious posts, such as those in Washington and Paris, although he emphasised that women were now ambassadors in both Beijing and Kabul. He ascribed that to the “pipeline” of diversity in the organisation, pointing out that the FCO had started behind the rest of Whitehall, having been the last Department to abolish its marriage bar, as late as 1973. Fraser anticipated that there would be some competitive female candidates to replace his successor, both from within the FCO and from outside.
	On the subject of wider diversity, although 12% of its total workforce is from a minority ethnic background, the FCO leadership at senior levels is almost exclusively white. Fraser said that there had been a cultural switch to understanding that diversity not only mattered but was good for the FCO, leading to better decisions and outcomes. That applies also to the wider workplace, wherever it might be, and indeed to this House itself.
	So what impact will these proposed changes to the Department’s budget have on the work of the FCO to address this culture? What schemes and initiatives within the Department will be funded in the next year specifically to address these issues? An isolationist agenda in our international relations has already damaged the UK’s image. At the very least, let us make sure that this is not reflected in this country’s workforce diversity. This should be, and is indeed, our strength.

Richard Benyon: I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and his Committee—albeit perhaps in its previous form—on making a recommendation that the Government have actually listened to. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that the Chancellor’s announcement on Foreign and Commonwealth Office spending drew a line under the reductions that had taken place over many years. Like many who have spoken in the debate today, I believe that those reductions have damaged Britain’s ability to project soft power.
	I have just come from a meeting of the Defence Committee, at which we heard about an organisation called the Conflict Studies Research Centre, which used to be based within Whitehall. It was a Government organisation, but it was cut in a similar way to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay when he talked about our ability to inform the Executive of what was going on. However, I am delighted to say that it has re-emerged in the private sector. With London continuing to be a major hub for international organisations, think-tanks and other sources of expertise in foreign affairs and defence issues, we need to be smarter and more fleet of foot in using those resources—much as similar resources are used in Washington, perhaps rather better than we use ours.
	In my capacity as a Minister and subsequently in roles on Select Committees and on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have been privileged to see our Foreign Office posts working abroad and I have huge respect for those who work in them. The programme of post closures was reversed under the coalition Government, and that was very welcome, but I believe that what we have in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has become broad and shallow. We need to concentrate on finding depth, and I therefore agree with many of the sentiments that have been expressed today. William Hague’s reopening of the language school is a welcome part of the re-engagement with those important skills.
	Through Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts abroad, the UK projects soft power. I often see this in my capacity as a trade envoy. Cuts to the FCO are short-sighted. When we engage with countries and build relationships over long periods of time, that is reflected in jobs at home, in exports and in helping our balance of payments. I have seen our influence way exceed expenditure because of the hard work being put into relationships being built with Governments, people of influence and countries. I am kicking the dust off my feet following a trip to Jordan and Lebanon last week with the Defence Committee. I should like to put on record my thanks to those two outstanding posts and to the ambassadors, the defence attachés, the political officers and the security staff operating in those countries. The United Kingdom’s stock is high over there, and we are benefiting from trying to keep those two countries stable in the face of unbelievable threats from over the border in Syria and Iraq.
	I want to concentrate on what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay called trouble spots. He perhaps looked back with a degree of Schadenfreude, and in some cases he was justified in expressing that, although in other cases I might question it. In looking at trouble spots, he said that we should look forward and ask where the trouble spots of the future might be. I suggest that a glaring example is a resurgent Russia.
	Whitehall had real experts on the Soviet Union throughout the cold war, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said. When the Soviet Union fell, many of those posts were stripped out as the people retired, were let go or moved to other areas of the Foreign Office or other Departments. At that point, our corporate knowledge fell to an alarming degree. I may be straying from the point slightly here, but the Defence Intelligence Service had no Ukraine desk officer at the time of the uprising. It had to borrow one from the South Caucasus desk. I imagine that similar problems existed elsewhere in the Foreign Office as the glaring reality of a major threat to the interests of Britain and NATO suddenly emerged. There is a real need to understand these threats and to examine how we should resource them in the future.
	I am not making any excuses for the Soviet Union, but at least in those days there was some kind of group accountability in that country and we did not feel that the regime was simply being run by one individual on his whim. Now, Russia is ruled by one autocratic mega-thief, a kleptocrat of quite staggering proportions who can annex the sovereign territory of another state, who can have people murdered on the streets of London and no doubt elsewhere, and who oversees a regime that murders people such as the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in prison in Russia. I wonder how many more Litvinenkos and Magnitskys there are. This is a man who can do to parts of Syria what he did to Grozny and who can threaten states that we are treaty-bound to defend under our membership of NATO. This is an individual for whom rules-based governance is anathema. We should therefore govern much of our thinking—and much of the way in which we resource our foreign policy and defence policy—by the use of one clear question: “What would Putin want?”

Tom Brake: And what does the hon. Gentleman think Putin would want in relation to the UK’s membership of the European Union?

Richard Benyon: The right hon. Gentleman must have read the next page of my speech. I shall answer that question precisely in a moment; I think he will agree with what I have to say.
	What President Putin would want first is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget to be curtailed. He would also want a weaker NATO that was riven by infighting and that continued to run down its armed forces, as it has done in years gone by. He would also want a NATO that did not respond to an escalation in aggressive actions against states on Russia’s western border. He has had a bit of bad news in that regard, however, because there has been a reversal in the decline in defence spending, not least by Britain but also by some of our allies. This situation requires massive efforts of diplomacy to keep our alliances moving in the right direction, showing resolve and showing the ability to stand up to the actions of his regime.
	To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), Putin wants a west in which influential countries such as Britain become less influential. I think the right hon. Gentleman can see where I am going here. Putin wants a weakened European Union. Let us remember that it is the EU, not NATO, that can impose damaging sanctions against his regime. He hates having an economic rule-setter on his western border.
	As the leader of the UK delegation to NATO, I recently attended a meeting with other delegation leaders at NATO headquarters. Informally and formally, our allies crossed the floor to ask me, with varying degrees of incredulity, whether Britain was really going to leave the EU. I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report will look not only at the costs of a possible Brexit but at the impact it would have on the geopolitics of our European foreign policy. These people, including Americans, were coming up to me and saying, “Now? At this time? Really? With all that threatens Europe, economically, militarily and societally?” There is much that our diplomats and intelligence services have to do in the coming years: shore up our alliances, particularly NATO; encourage more spending on defence among our allies; and use all methods, through both our hard and soft power postures, to deter Russia. This is about how we invest; how we work with our allies; and how we exercise our armed forces and show strength.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree with that. I am certainly not somebody who believes in confrontation; my hon. Friend probably knows that well, as he knows how I operate in this House, and exactly the same applies in how we deal with a potential aggressor. The purpose of what I am saying today is that not only should we be strong, showing that our alliance is strong and that we are not going to see the envelope of article 5 pushed by people such as President Putin, but we should engage diplomatically with him and with his regime to try to get some common sense. We should use resources such as the World Service and the British Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about earlier. Very movingly last week, a Romanian who works at NATO said that the greatest treat of her day used to be sitting under her bedcovers listening to the British World Service, as it kept her in touch with what was going on in the west and the freedoms that we enjoy, and she just used to want some of that—she has now got it. Through such means, we can also influence people in Russia.

Richard Benyon: As always, my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and he and his family perhaps understand this more than any of us in this House.
	Let me conclude by talking about one concept in foreign policy, which is our will—our will to make a better world and to extol the virtues of the kind of society that we enjoy in this country and that most of our European colleagues also enjoy in the west. We face difficulties in that; we get on with our lives as independent members of different alliances, be it NATO, the EU or other arrangements we have, whereas an aggressor such as Russia is one country controlled pretty much by one individual, and so our will is tested. On the face of it, we should not be alarmed, because across NATO 3.2 million troops are under arms and the four largest NATO members spend $740 billion a year on defence compared with Russia’s figure of £65.6 billion. But that statistic, stark as it is, does not describe the depth of the problem we are seeing in places such as Ukraine, Georgia and Syria, and the threats, be they actual or subversive, faced by NATO countries such as the Baltic states. We have to have a strong will, and proving that we have it requires resources, commitment and the hard slog of soft power and diplomatic efforts. It requires language skills and a real in-depth understanding. Of course there are other problems in the world, for example, in the South China sea, in Africa and elsewhere, which draw many of those resources away from a particular problem.
	As so many people have said in this debate, we do not know what is coming round the corner next, but I am certain about one thing: Russia will tweak NATO’s nose, push the envelope of article 5, be it through cyber, by playing on Russian-speaking nationals in certain countries or just by threatening countries that are friendly to us but not members of NATO, such as Sweden, through incursions into their waters or airspace. Today, in the Defence Committee, we were told that
	“any weakness on our part, Russia exploits.”
	Making sure that Russia understands that the west will respond and will punish it if it attacks a NATO state must remain a key foreign policy objective—but it is one that needs proper resourcing.

Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I agree entirely with what he said about President Putin. Others have made these points today, but let me address President Putin directly: esli vy hotite pogovorit' c nami, my budem govorit's vami. I hope he will have heard that message—

Tom Brake: I will come back to that—

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Crispin Blunt: I think I can help the right hon. Gentleman. We were being invited to take military action in order to deprive President Assad’s regime of its chemical weapons—that was what we were being asked to do. If there was a proposition to do something much wider, that is the one that should have been put to the House.

Tom Brake: My recollection may be slightly different from that of the hon. Gentleman, but if I recall it correctly the vote was about leaving open the option of the UK Parliament taking military action at a point in the future, which would have required another vote. The UK Parliament decided at that point to say that it did not want to leave open the option of that future action, and I regret the fact that that decision was taken.
	On the European Union, I hope we will be able to engage in a positive campaign on this matter. This is not entirely related to the estimates, but I wonder whether the Minister for Europe has a view about whether the GO—Grassroots Out—campaign is the one that should be pushed forward as the campaign for Brexit, on the basis that it is a good cross-party campaign and is perhaps best placed to represent the Brexit campaign.
	I have a suggestion that will cost the FCO absolutely nothing. Once, hopefully, the EU referendum campaign is over and we have convinced the country that we are better off in, I hope to see the Ministers who have quite recently come out in favour of our membership of the European Union occasionally talking about the benefits of our being in the EU. The difficulty over the next four months is that many of those Ministers who have now rightly stated that, on balance, we are better off in the European Union, have previously not highlighted some of the positives involved. This suggestion that Ministers should speak more positively about the EU will have no cost to the FCO.
	On Syria, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being built in the budget for what we hope will happen after the ceasefire. If the ceasefire holds, and we get to a position in which there is a degree of stabilisation in Syria, there will clearly be a need for the FCO to make quite a substantial financial commitment to greater involvement in the stabilisation process that should then follow. I hope that we have budgeted for that.
	Let me turn now to human rights and the importance of having an FCO policy that promotes human rights. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) rightly referred to what the permanent under-secretary had said, which was that human rights
	“is one of the things we follow, it is not one of our top priorities.”
	He then went on to say in response to a subsequent question that
	“right now the prosperity agenda is further up the list”.
	I wrote to the permanent under-secretary to get some clarity over what he was saying about human rights and the prosperity agenda. I wanted to know how the two things worked together and whether one had a greater priority than the other. He replied, for which I was very grateful, but he did not comment on his quote, but what he did provide was a useful breakdown of how many people within the FCO, in full-time equivalent terms, work on human rights versus the number of people who work principally on prosperity. The figures are that 240 people work on human rights, against 2,900 people on prosperity. I do not know what is in the estimates from a budgetary point of view, but will the Minister tell us whether there is some sort of forward vision about how that balance might change?
	Clearly, there are many, many human rights issues around the world—the Minister will be pleased to know that I will refer to but a few of the things in the thick sheaf I have here—and I want to know the FCO will be fully engaged in that. Let me run through them very quickly. First, on Burma, it is very pleasing that there are developments there, but I know that some of the Burma campaign groups are very worried that, even with the important role that Aung San Suu Kyi is playing, some minority groups are at a greater risk now than they were before. That requires FCO attention.
	In Bahrain, we know that the UK Government are working with the prison authorities and the police to improve the regard for human rights, but there are concerns that the policy is not yet delivering the goods. I want to be certain that the FCO is sufficiently resourced to deal with such matters. I could say the same about China as well.
	Perhaps the most worrying development—this is where the FCO really does need to invest very heavily to ensure that it has the right number of people in place—is with regard to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. I am really concerned that, at some point in the near future, it will be confirmed that there have been breaches of international humanitarian law. There are enough organisations that have produced evidence to suggest that that is likely to be the case. The FCO will be in a very difficult position. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has repeatedly said that there have been discussions with the Saudis and that assurance have been given, it seems that the evidence points in the other direction. The FCO needs to monitor very carefully the activities of the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for assessing whether IHL has been broken. It would be in no one’s interests to find out subsequently that, in fact, IHL had been broken in relation to the activities of the Saudis in Yemen.
	I am pleased to hear that, perhaps without great fanfare, the Committees on Arms Export Controls has been re-established. I hope that, at its first inquiry, it will look at the question of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because that is the most pressing problem.
	I could also mention human rights issues in Sri Lanka, which remain a priority for the Tamil community. There is also the matter of the human rights of the Ahmadi Muslim community in various countries around the world where they are often put under pressure.
	I will finish by saying that the investment that we make in the FCO, whether it is hard investment in terms of our presence around the world or the soft power to which many Members referred, must be a priority for us. It helps us to punch above our weight and to ensure that the UK, whether it is through the British Council or our embassy presences around the world, is a major player on the world stage. I would like to ensure that that continues.

Patrick Grady: I congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and all his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), on the important job they have done in producing the report and the quite considerable success that they have achieved in persuading the Chancellor at least to maintain the Foreign Office budget more or less at what it was in the face of very great pressure. I will come back to some of those points as we go on.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out, this is a debate on the estimates. Madam Deputy Speaker, you were only doing your job when you called my hon. Friend to order, because of the rules and conventions of this House by which you are bound. None the less, it does serve to demonstrate the complete inadequacy of the estimates process. The motion in front of us today authorises, in clauses 2 and 3, the expenditure of more than £50 million of public money, yet the Chamber is almost empty. There has not even been a single contribution from the Back Benches of the Official Opposition party. The broader estimates are contained in the mighty tome, House of Commons paper 747, which was no doubt named after a jumbo jet owing to its not inconsiderable size. Yet here we are, barely an hour and 20 minutes after starting this debate, moving to the wind-up speeches.
	All kinds of important Government expenditure will have no kind of real in-depth scrutiny. Page 407 includes a payment from the resources reserves (programme) budget in respect of the battle of New Orleans commemoration—an increase of £142,000. Page 410 contains a transfer to the Cabinet Office (capital) budget in respect of the Foxhound Project—perhaps the Minister can tell us what that is. There is a decrease of £3 million to that Government budget. Also on page 410 is a cost-neutral transfer of the old Admiralty building, which is much appreciated by FCO officials, I am sure, to the Department for Education.

Crispin Blunt: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with the arguments, which were almost in order, about the quality of the estimates. As he has raised this question, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he can explain why we have given that money to celebrate a British defeat that happened after the peace treaty was concluded on the war in which it took place. Perhaps we can also have an explanation of the biggest number of all in the Foreign Office estimates, which is the budget-neutral increase in programming expenditure fully offset by an increase in receipts in respect of revised intergovernmental charging, which appears to be a sum of £220 million. If the Minister could explain that, we might at least have had some focus on the estimates themselves.

Patrick Grady: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It demonstrates the complete lack of scrutiny. Madam Deputy Speaker, you did, of course, say that there are other mechanisms—such as Select Committees, statements, Question Times and Westminster Hall—through which we can discuss different aspects of expenditure. The estimates process itself is clearly inadequate, particularly for those Members from Scotland who were told during the debates on English votes for English laws that this was the opportunity for us to discuss Barnett consequentials and the impact of legislation on which we cannot vote because of the EVEL procedures. It seems that that opportunity is being denied to us. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I look forward to our forward to our inquiry into the estimates procedure and to questioning Ministers, particularly Treasury Ministers, and Members from all parties about how we can make this procedure fair. As I am at risk of deviating too far from the motion and being ruled out of order myself, I will now turn to the more general themes of the debate in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, and the broader issue of the FCO’s role and function.
	It seems from the tone of the debate that the FCO is in a somewhat precarious situation. It is a victim, like so many other Departments, people and communities across the country, of the Government’s ideological commitment to swingeing public service cuts, no matter what the cost. In the SNP manifesto, we showed that it was possible modestly to increase public services, while over the long term still balancing the books and paying down the public debt. This estimate is one of the more unforeseen and probably slightly less concerning aspects of that commitment, as it does not impinge on people’s day-to-day lives in the way that so many other cuts are. Nevertheless, it is the impact of an ideological drive from the Government.
	At the same time, that approach is leading to an increasingly ideological and almost isolationist narrowing of focus and interest, with a divergence away from what should be priority areas—the protection of human rights and the promotion of peaceful and sustainable development. Some of that was alluded to in the discussion about the role of the FCO and its expenditure on overseas and official development assistance. The SNP has long welcomed the Government’s commitment to 0.7% of GNI to be spent on ODA, but meeting the target is not a blank cheque to spend that on whatever the Government can cram into the definition of ODA. I have several times raised on the Floor of the House the increasing overlap between expenditure for that target and that for the 2% NATO target, which might be allowed in principle but I do not think is what people expected in practice when the Government made those commitments.
	The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) mentioned ODA and the funding of the World Service, and I share a number of his concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) talked about the importance of effective co-operation across Government, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s responses to her points.
	The headline FCO budget is one of the smallest in government, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most effective or efficient. The discussion, as I have said, is in the context of the pressure being felt across public spending, so if the FCO’s budget is to be protected it must be used efficiently. From the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) we heard some statistics about the number of people employed. Over my lifetime I have, for various reasons, visited three of Her Majesty’s embassies and high commissions around the world. I was in Malawi, where, despite 2 million people in that country not having access to clean water, the high commissioner has a swimming pool at his disposal in his residence. In Zambia, a tennis court is provided in a country in which most children probably play football without shoes. Just the week before last I was in Berlin, where I found that the embassy takes up an entire street block and practically stops the traffic through one of the main thoroughfares right next door to it.
	There are undoubtedly efficiencies to be found. We were told during the independence referendum that Scotland could never afford a network of global embassies, outposts and so on—that this would be one of the crippling costs of independence. To be fair, if we were to try to replicate what the FCO has, that might well be true. However, I think that a country such as Scotland could probably manage much more modestly. Indeed, considering the role that we play in the world today, so could the United States—I mean the United Kingdom, although the United States probably could too, for that matter.
	Other issues that the FCO needs to consider have been mentioned in other debates. There was a useful debate in Westminster Hall a while back about consular assistance, especially for bereaved families following the loss of loved ones overseas. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), about concerns that one of my constituents raised about support for people who are victims of terrorist attacks—or, more accurately in her case, who witness terrorist attacks, as she did in Tunisia. She feels very concerned about the lack of information and communication, which I have mentioned in parliamentary questions and in a letter to the Under-Secretary.
	Finally, we have also heard about the downgrading of human rights in the FCO’s priority areas. The director of Amnesty International has said:
	“The UK is setting a dangerous precedent to the world on human rights. There’s no doubt that the downgrading of human rights by this government is a gift to dictators the world over and fatally undermines our ability to call on other countries to uphold rights and laws.”
	This is a serious concern about which I have heard from a number of civil society organisations, and it is important that it is addressed. Nowhere else is that more true than with the situation in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, where UK planes with pilots trained in the UK and bombs made in the UK, co-ordinated in the presence of UK military advisers, are being used in the war in Yemen. At some point, the Government must tell us when that adds up to complicity in that war.
	In conclusion, these next two days ought to be taken up by a debate on the estimates process, but we have shown in this debate the inadequacy of the House’s processes and procedures for dealing with estimates and expenditure. We have also touched on the important role of the FCO, the pressures it faces as a result of the Government’s ideological budget cuts and the challenges that that presents for more effective use of taxpayers’ money and co-ordination across Departments.

Catherine West: It is a privilege to speak in this important debate. With an international network of 268 posts across 168 states, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a long and proud history as a world leader in diplomacy, securing peace, protecting citizens abroad and providing an overseas platform to many domestic Departments and agencies.
	Last year, the UK was ranked No. 1 in the world in Portland’s league table of soft power. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is no longer in his place, mentioned, the concept of the battle of ideas is incredibly important as we approach the concept of our work abroad. The question is whether this year’s spending review undermines the important work of the FCO and our standing in the world of diplomacy. We know that since 2010 the Government have repeatedly cut the budget of the FCO, and now we have a Foreign Office that not only has the smallest budget of any Whitehall Department but has had its budget slashed by 16% in real terms.
	According to the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned several times in today’s debate, we spend less on diplomacy than Canada, France, the United States and even New Zealand. Germany spends almost 50% more than this Government do. Some key states, such as China, Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, are actually increasing their diplomatic budgets. Although I welcome and support the announcement that the FCO’s budget will be protected in real terms, that comes after five years of cuts that have reduced the workforce to an all-time low and risked undermining its ability to have influence in the world. The Committee’s report, which we have debated at length, shows that over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytic capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab spring and the crisis in Ukraine. We heard some very interesting Russian from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) emphasised the importance of acquiring language skills. One never knows when one might need a language.
	I hope the House will receive from the Minister today a clear outline of spending estimates which will demonstrate how he intends to repair the damage already inflicted on his Department, to allow the UK to pursue its political and diplomatic objectives and maintain the global lead in soft power resources.
	Last summer the world observed the largest refugee crisis since the second world war. According to figures released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are an estimated 59.9 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, more than 20 million of whom are externally displaced refugees. As has been discussed in the House frequently since the summer, millions of those refugees are fleeing the destabilising civil war in Syria. Earlier today, following the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), the House was fully engaged in a debate about how the situation in Syria could improve. We must have the resources to match the energy and the desire in this House to see peace in the middle east.
	Given the media coverage, it would be easy to think that that was where the problem ended, but we know that millions of people have fled Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Burma, Iraq, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Gaza and the west bank—the crisis is global. I take this desperate situation as a clear example of why we need a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that is properly funded and capable of engaging with these issues. Only a properly funded Foreign Office can allow the UK to take its place at the United Nations Security Council to set an agenda that seeks to address the causes of the international refugee crisis.
	It has become clear that as a result of five years of cuts, there has been a change in the FCO’s focus and a downgrading of its focus on human rights. The Committee Report noted:
	“The Permanent Under-Secretary acknowledged that human rights was now not one of the top priorities and that ‘in a constrained environment’, other elements of the FCO’s work had ‘supplanted it to an extent’. We believe this to be a consequence of the savings imposed so far on the Department.”
	To give one example on which there has been a lot of correspondence between Labour colleagues and others, Mr Andargachew Tsige is a British citizen currently imprisoned in Ethiopia. We could devote much more energy to such cases, were we to have the resources in country.
	At one time securing peace, strengthening human rights and protecting our citizens abroad were at the top of the FCO’s list of priorities, yet the recent state visit by China, for example, appears to illustrate the fact that Foreign Secretary’s top priority for the FCO is mainly commercial. It was up to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to raise specifically the problem of the tariff arrangements which put UK steel at a trade disadvantage with China, human rights in China, climate change and the need to tackle enduring poverty. In recent months, the priority of international security in relation to the South China sea has come to the fore.
	This Government’s foreign policy lacks balance. Trade with China or any other nation is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin, human rights, appears to have declined in importance. The Foreign Secretary has committed to an “internal review” following the Foreign Affairs Committee report. We look forward to seeing that, yet this House is still waiting to be told if it will be made public. Ministers should explain why they will not commit now to publishing this important document, given the clear public and national interest.
	In conclusion, the FCO website states that its priorities are to protect British people and promote our global influence and prosperity. After five years of cuts, the question is whether the FCO remains fit to deliver those priorities. There is strong evidence, much of which we have heard in the House today, that diplomatic operations have been devalued and the FCO’s workforce has been cut right back. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on projected estimates, and I hope to hear more about how an adequately resourced Foreign and Commonwealth Office might lead to a more rounded foreign policy.

David Lidington: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing their report to the debate this afternoon.
	From both sides of the House, there was a common theme: the importance of an effective diplomatic service and Foreign Office in advancing and defending the interests of the United Kingdom in the face of multiple challenges in different parts of the world. I thank in particular those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of individual members of Her Majesty’s diplomatic service. That gives me the opportunity not only to thank those individuals myself, but to put on the record my own thanks and those of the ministerial team for the professionalism and commitment that members of the diplomatic service have shown to us, as they have to previous Governments. They continue to work day in, day out on behalf of the people of this country.
	I want to move on to the spending review and the settlement for the FCO, but I cannot quite let the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) go without comment. I completely understand that it is the job of an Opposition spokesman to try to find criticisms to make of the Government—I remember doing that myself some years back—but the degree of amnesia that infected her judgment on this occasion was astounding. It was as if the years from 1997 to 2010 had been airbrushed out of the historical record.
	It is worth reminding the House that under the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Foreign Office’s budget was cut, posts were closed, the language school was axed altogether, the library was scrapped, and we got to the craziest situation of all. After the Treasury had removed the traditional protection arrangement that it had offered against the Foreign Office’s exposure to foreign exchange movements, as a result of the payment of salaries and bills by overseas posts, the hon. Lady’s former colleague, Mr David Miliband, was reduced to having to draft in members of the diplomatic service to establish a hedge fund unit inside the Foreign Office so that the Foreign Office could try and run a hedging operation of its own. I do not want to hear too many lectures from the Labour party about Foreign Office expenditure and sensible budgeting.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee and the House as a whole are entitled to ensure that the Government are held properly to account for delivery of their responsibilities in the field of foreign and security affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asked about two or three specific items in the estimates. I am going to have to write to them about two of those, but I can give them some satisfaction on the question of the battle of New Orleans, because I have been passed some additional advice. The purpose of the occasion was to commemorate the British dead in that battle and celebrate the 200 years of peace that have followed between the United Kingdom and the United States. The Foreign Office has contributed $215,000; other contributors have included the state of Louisiana and Boeing, and there has also been a significant personal contribution from our honorary consul in New Orleans.

Crispin Blunt: While my right hon. Friend is on that issue, can we see how adroit he and his team are? Will he explain what the Foxhound Project is? Is this a welcome addition to the leisure activities of Her Majesty’s Government, or is it expenditure in respect of something else?

David Lidington: If my hon. Friend is expecting to reopen the debate on field sports, I will definitely disappoint him. That is one of the subjects on which I will write to him and the hon. Member for Glasgow North.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee report, published on 20 October last year, came before the publication of the spending review, the national security strategy and the new development strategy in November last year. The report was important, because it contributed to an extremely vigorous public debate about the importance of continuing to invest in our diplomatic resources.
	As a number of hon. Members noted, the Chancellor responded in his spending review. He noted in his statement in this place the crucial role of what he described as “our outstanding diplomatic service”, and he announced that the Government would protect the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in real terms. That is important because, as right hon. and hon. Members across the House have said, an effective and expert diplomatic service is an important element in allowing this country to respond to the international challenges that we face to our interests.
	Now, there is no avoiding the fact that, despite that commitment to protect the FCO’s budget in real terms, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will still have difficult decisions to take about relative priorities in the Department, but that is no more than the challenge that would confront any Secretary of State. We would all like to feel that the budgets available to us were unlimited; in the real world, however, those budgets are finite, and they are constrained by the Government’s overall need to bring down the deficit and address this country’s long history of living beyond its means in terms of the public finances.
	The Future FCO review, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked me, is designed in part to find ways in which we can secure our objectives as a
	Department by doing things differently. I have talked briefly to the reviewer, who is also speaking to other Ministers and senior officials, and the purpose of the review is to advise Ministers and senior officials on how the FCO can be more expert, more agile and more focused on its key priorities than it is at the moment.
	I expect the review to be in a position to set out its conclusions later this year—by the end of the spring, I hope. We intend there to be a clear vision of how the FCO should look by 2020, so that we can implement changes in the Department to enable us, within the priorities and resources we have, to secure our objectives more effectively and more efficiently than in the past. We also hope that the review will ensure that, where efficiencies can be made, the savings can be channelled straight back into serving the core objectives that the Foreign Secretary has set.
	My hon. Friend asked about the spending review letter. The Government’s policy in respect of all Departments is not to publish settlement letters. There is plenty of public information in the spending review documentation and the Chancellor’s speech and answers. The letters are part of ongoing policy discussions, so it is not appropriate that they should be in the public domain at this time.
	The overall resource departmental expenditure limit for the FCO will rise in line with inflation in each of the four years covered by the spending review, increasing our funding from £1.1 billion in 2015-16 to £1.24 billion by 2019-20. We believe that this settlement will enable the Department to maintain our world-class diplomatic service, including our network of posts around the world, which host not only the FCO but 32 other Government Departments and agencies. That global presence and continued foreign policy leadership in Whitehall by the FCO will serve to protect our national security, promote our prosperity and project the UK’s values overseas.
	In line with the Government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, the FCO will be allocated additional ODA-eligible resources, more than doubling our spending from £273 million to £560 million in 2019-20. That will enable us to pursue our key foreign policies and to deliver the ambitions set out in the national security strategy and the development strategy.
	The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) asked, very reasonably, how we reconciled the priorities of different Departments and ensured that, as far as possible, they incorporated within an overall agreed Government approach. The answer, in part, is that there are frequent conversations between Ministers in the different Departments dealing with external affairs and between their officials. However, in the broadest sense, the strategic direction on the key elements of the United Kingdom’s external policy is set after discussion by the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. The NSC brings together the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, the International Development Secretary, the Defence Secretary and other interested Ministers precisely so that we can agree on an approach that harnesses the different skills of all Government Departments and, at the same time, establishes which Departments are to contribute which resources to that common objective.
	The settlement includes increased spending to support the UK’s overseas territories. In order to meet our long-standing commitment to address their reasonable needs, the FCO will co-ordinate a new strategy for the overseas territories and chair a new director-level board to co-ordinate cross-Government activity. Furthermore, as announced by the Prime Minister during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta in November last year, the United Kingdom will host the next such Heads of Government gathering in 2018, and the FCO will co-ordinate that event.
	The spending review settlement provides the same budget for Chevening scholarships as in 2015-16 of £46 million per year. Over its 32-year history, that scholarship scheme has built up a large and influential alumni network aligned with the interests of the United Kingdom, and this funding will ensure that that continues.
	A number of hon. Members asked about language training and language skills. The FCO language centre was reopened in September 2013 to renew the focus on and investment in languages as a core diplomatic skill, and ensure that we get the right people with the right skills in the right jobs to deliver our objectives. As a priority, we will allocate new funds to improve Mandarin, Russian and Arabic language skills. In 2015, we trained 34 staff in Arabic, 14 in Mandarin and 24 in Russian, as well as 35 in French and 28 in Spanish. I completely accept that more needs to be done, but we are making progress, and there is a very clear commitment to continuing to develop language skills.
	In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will spend up to £24 million over the next four years to increase the presence of its counter-terrorism and extremism experts overseas. In sum, our budget will allow us to focus on our key foreign policy objectives, including tackling Daesh and ensuring security in Europe. It will also allow us to do even more to prevent conflict and encourage stability in fragile states. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that the Department will need to become leaner and build on its core strengths, and reinvest and refocus resources on new priorities. That is the reason for the review, about which I have already spoken, and it is also what lies behind the creation of a new digital transformation unit, the purpose of which is to ensure that FCO officials have access to the latest techniques for using modern technology in their work. After a year in operation, the diplomatic academy is already boosting both broader policy capability and specialist skills.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) asked about the tech overhaul programme. We are planning for its global deployment from 2016 to 2018, and a headline figure of £105 million has been agreed by the FCO board. We believe that the overhaul will provide greater speed, stability and reliability, and, partly by reducing the time currently lost because of inadequate IT systems, increase the productivity of staff members. We are using our IT partner, BAE Systems, to help deliver the tech overhaul to industry best practice standards.
	A number of hon. Members asked about human rights. We have taken action to mainstream human rights across the FCO network. The issue remains a priority, but we believe that, rather than it being ring-fenced for a few specialist staff, it should be the responsibility of all British diplomats. More detail of our approach has been provided in our written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s human rights inquiry, to which my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Anelay gave evidence on 24 February.

David Lidington: The difficulty with providing numbers is that we are talking about not only people who will be in post, but people in desk offices in London who will spend part of their time on human rights and other parts of it on prosperity and advancing British economic interest. I do not think there is a contradiction between the two. When I talk to British businesses about possible investment markets, they frequently tells me that when they assess investment opportunities in a particular country, one of the criteria they use is how good the rule of law is in that country. From a business point of view, they do not want to take the risk of putting money into a place and then finding that, because of corruption, their money, licence or permit is revoked at the behest of some political leader. This is not guaranteed, but a country with an effective rule of law of the kind that will attract inward investment is more likely to have genuinely independent courts and to respect the rights of individuals, so I think that the two go together.
	In addition to its resource allocation, the FCO will be provided with a flat cash settlement of £98 million of capital funding per year, to invest in our estate. That will provide further investment across the estate, to maintain our global network and to keep diplomats and other Government staff safe while they work for the UK abroad. Additional capital requirements will be funded from asset sales and the recycling of receipts and, where necessary, through recourse to the reserve.
	I have been asked about cross-Whitehall funds. I can confirm that the Government’s spending on international priorities will increase further, with a larger conflict, stability and security fund, a new prosperity fund and more funding for both the British Council and the BBC World Service. The CSSF, through which the FCO funds much of its conflict prevention work, will grow by 19% in real terms by 2019-20 to a total of £1.5 billion a year. That will strengthen our ability to support stabilisation in countries such as Syria, Ukraine, Somalia and Afghanistan, and it will strengthen our response to serious transnational threats, including extremism, serious and organised crime, and illegal migration.
	In the conflict, security and stabilisation fund allocations for 2015-16, £400 million were allocated to countries eligible for official development assistance and £633 million to non-ODA countries. The new prosperity fund will be worth £1.3 billion over the next five years, and it will be used to support global growth, trade and stability. That will help us to reduce poverty in emerging and developing countries, and it will open up new markets and opportunities to the United Kingdom. Our diplomatic network helps to facilitate deals for trade and inward investment, to tackle barriers to our own businesses, and to promote open economies and a rules-based international system, which will benefit British business now and in the future.
	Funding for the British Council will be protected in real terms, but there will need to be a shift in the balance between ODA and non-ODA funding to support an expansion of the council’s work in developing countries. In addition, the British Council will be able to bid for up to £700 million in additional funding to improve links with emerging economies, help to tackle extremism globally and support good governance.
	I was asked about the Department’s human rights work through the Magna Carta fund, and about the balance between ODA and non-ODA countries. The Magna Carta fund has 47 priority countries, the overwhelming majority of which are ODA countries—developing countries. There are four non-ODA countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Russia and Israel. Those four, as well as being eligible for support from the Magna Carta fund, are eligible for funding streams such as the Arab partnership fund and the CSSF.
	I think there has been agreement across the House that a strong diplomatic service and worldwide network are essential for this country to maintain its position in the world. I believe that the Government’s commitment to protect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and provide additional funds for cross-government international activity will ensure that we are able to play a pivotal role, both bilaterally and through the membership of the many international and multilateral organisations of which we are part, in tackling the most important global challenges.
	Without wanting to stray too far from the subject matter, I will simply say that I agreed completely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about how we can amplify the United Kingdom’s diplomatic reach through our active membership of the European Union. I am therefore confident that the outcome of the spending review is good not only for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British diplomacy, but, most importantly of all, for the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.

Crispin Blunt: With the leave of the House, I will briefly thank hon. and right hon. Members for taking part in this estimates debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I agreed somewhat with the point made during the debate that our ability, as an institution, to oversee the estimates properly is historically woeful and needs to be addressed.
	I am grateful for the support that I received for my arguments from my hon. Friends the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) made a point about diversity, which the Minister addressed. That point has power, because clearly we will be better off if our service properly reflects the country in which we live. The organisation was found in 1997 not to reflect that diversity; as it moves away from that position, one wants to be careful about getting there in too much of a hurry, because we might lose some of the talent and ability already in the institution.
	There is an issue about how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made that change, and that goes across the piece to its budget. In his response, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that it would not be appropriate at this time to place in the public domain the public expenditure settlement letters. Someone of his experience will recognise a piece of “Yes Minister” speak at the Dispatch Box as well as anyone else. He is, of course, inviting a blizzard of further inquiries if we do not get that detail.
	I welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the fact that there is a real need for more progress in language skills. The concern is that he said the Department must become leaner. It is already starving and cannot allocate its resources effectively. What he said about the conflict, stability and security fund being 60:40 in favour of non-ODA countries illustrates the challenges that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office faces. The Committee will continue to examine those challenges during this Parliament.
	Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

HOME OFFICE
	 — 
	Police Funding Formula

[Relevant Document: Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Reform of the Police Funding Formula, HC 476.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2016, for expenditure by the Home Office:
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £256,729,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 747,
	(2) further resources, not exceeding £356,056,000 be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
	(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,328,197,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Keith Vaz: I am very pleased that the House has an opportunity to focus on the important issue of the police funding formula. I will set out the background to, and the timeline of, the funding formula review before assessing where the process is now. The fundamental concern of the Home Affairs Committee is: when is the new review going to start?
	I want to thank the members of the Committee, who have unanimously agreed the report—the hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
	The majority of police forces, chief constables, police and crime commissioners and Members of Parliament welcomed the launch of the police funding formula review last year. The manner in which police funding is currently distributed is outdated, inefficient and not fit for purpose. I want to commend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for taking on this challenge head-on. However, his ambition, which is shared by the whole House, has not been matched by the process.
	When the Home Office launched the public consultation on 21 July 2015, it allowed a period of only eight weeks. After receiving an initial 1,700 responses, it laid out its proposed refinements to the model on 28 October. The second proposal was described as “inadequate”—by, among others, Tony Hogg, the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner—as it gave PCCs and chief constables just three weeks to respond.
	The refined model showed that 11 forces would lose by the changes, while the remaining 32 forces would increase their share. The chief constables and PCCs were puzzled and frustrated about how the sums had been calculated. Eventually, it took Andrew White, the chief executive in the office of the Devon and Cornwall PCC, to purchase the original data, and he wrote to the Home Office on 2 November to inform the Home Office that it had used the wrong data in making its calculations. The whole police service and this House owe a debt of gratitude to Andrew White for his actions.
	In a letter to me from the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill has since stated that this error occurred because officials got confused with similar filenames and therefore used the wrong set of data. When the error was discovered, the director general of the crime and policing group at the Home Office, Mary Calam, admitted that she did not understand the significance of the response that she had signed. I am not sure whether that admission was to give us faith in the system or make us question it further. Overnight, police forces across the country had swung from being winners to losers and vice versa. Chief Constable Giles York of Sussex police said that his force went from a £10 million loss to a £2 million gain. Chief Constable Mike Creedon of Derbyshire police said that his force went from a gain of £20 million to a £7 million loss. Chief Constable Simon Cole demonstrated that Leicestershire constabulary was set to lose £700,000 under the old system, but would now lose £2.4 million.
	Subsequently, Mr Speaker granted my urgent question on 19 November 2015 and the process was rightly suspended by the Policing Minister. Again, he should be commended for coming to the Dispatch Box and agreeing that the sums were wrong and that the process had to be halted. I do not want to dwell any further on the history, except to say, as it says in the report, that this was a shambolic end to a poorly managed process that significantly damaged the relationship between the Home Office and its primary stakeholders, the police.
	Currently, police funding is supposedly being given on the basis of a funding formula that has not been operated for a number of years. The formula is over a decade old and is not based on the latest census data, but on the previous census. It is impossible for police forces to calculate it because many of the data are out of date and it does not take into account the modern nature of policing.

Keith Vaz: I make no comment on the absence of the shadow Policing Minister. I am sure that he will come in very soon and make up for lost time. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s first point in my speech. He raises an important issue on the capabilities of the police and the new demands of 21st-century policing.
	Mike Creedon, the Derbyshire police chief, said to me that if the current formula was still valid,
	“it would be reflecting a reality which is ten years old”.
	He is clear, as are many other chief constables, that there is a consensus that we need to restart the process of moving to a fairer funding model. I think that that consensus is reflected throughout the House.
	Since the publication of the police grant report in December 2015, concerns have been raised that it represents a real-term cut to grant levels of 1.4% and requires increases to the police element of the council tax precept. Police forces are being required to raise the police precept across the country, including in Cheshire,
	Northumbria, Humberside and Thames Valley—the area that is partly represented by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Dee Collins of West Yorkshire police estimates that her force has received a 3.2% cut in real terms, even after the PCC agreed to the maximum precept increase.
	The Select Committee published its report on 11 December. The Government’s response is now 19 days late. The first question for the Minister is when the response will come.
	Last Tuesday, five police and crime commissioners gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee: Ron Ball from Warwickshire, Alan Charles from Derbyshire, Sir Clive Loader from Leicestershire, Katy Bourne from Sussex and Jane Kennedy from Merseyside. It was clear from their evidence that the police and crime commissioners had not been consulted on the new review. Ian Hopkins, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, has said that he wishes to work collectively and collaboratively with the Home Office, as do many PCCs and chiefs.
	It is clear from the concerns that have been raised with me by chief constables before this debate that they have not been consulted. However, in the last debate, which as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, was only last Wednesday, the Minister alluded to the fact that he had met a number of chief constables. I am sure that he will enlighten us as to his further discussions when he responds to this debate. Chief Constable Neil Rhodes and Deputy Chief Constable Heather Roach of Lincolnshire police have informed me that they met the Policing Minister last Wednesday, 24 February, to discuss the formula. I hope that he will tell us the outcome of that meeting.
	When he replies to the debate, will the Minister tell us about his engagement with police forces, and reassure them that he is taking the matter as seriously as he was when he last appeared before the House? One issue that must be clarified is the capability review undertaken by the National Police Chiefs Council under the leadership of Sara Thornton. If the Minister could advise the House about how far those deliberations have reached, that will assist us in knowing something of the timetable that he has in mind.
	It is concerning that since last year’s formula changes were abandoned, there have been no further proposals to work on. The Minister wrote to me on 1 February with an update on the formula arrangements, but as I said, he has not given us a date for when that review will commence. Police forces need to know what is going to happen. Ian Drysdale, the director of business services for Kent police, said that the continuing uncertainty is unhelpful, and that a transition to a new arrangement should be made as soon as possible. Following the glaring errors last year, it is self-evident that the Home Office should redouble its efforts to create a fairer funding model, and it is clear that the funding review should be restarted as swiftly as possible.
	You will be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Stephen Kavanagh, chief constable of Essex police, has stated that any prevarication on the part of the Home Office would be hugely disappointing and regrettable. Many have argued that it would be wrong to change the formula in a period of austerity, but on the contrary, austerity could have been a starting point for an informed reassessment of the formula in order to incentivise the police for reforms and deal with other inefficiencies. The flat rate reduction for all forces continues to penalise those who have already received less. However, following the Chancellor’s announcement in the comprehensive spending review on 25 November, which the Committee welcomed, that is less of a concern. In fact, the Home Office has a renewed opportunity to review the formula.
	The three key failings aside from the stand-out mistake of confusing data filenames, were essentially process failures, such as sharing exemplifications at an early stage, which meant that data errors went unnoticed until it was too late, setting out transitional arrangements at an early stage, which meant that losers were even more concerned about the potentially immediate damaging impacts on their budget, and not allowing sufficient period for consultation, particularly with PCCs and chief constables. Does the Minister accept that those serious failings should be addressed in a future review process?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is right. That is the point the Committee makes in our report. Different areas have different demands. Policing has changed. It is not as it was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago. Therefore, the police must say what they are doing now, and the Government must say what they want to fund. Of course, the situation in Wales requires special attention.
	The indicators proposed by the Home Office in determining funding—there are only four—fail to take into account many of the points raised in the report, and thus miss 70% to 80% of police demand that is not linked to volume crime. The Home Office needs to make absolutely clear what tasks 21st-century policing is expected to take on, and then decide how much it is prepared to fund.
	It is of course important that police forces work in a collaborative way. Indeed, the Government are working in a collaborative way. When the Minister came before the House in November to tell us that the police funding formula review was being suspended, he was not then the Minister with responsibility for the fire services. The Government have decided to look across the Government and ensure that they collaborate properly. If they can do so, so can local police forces. If that happens, it must be part of the funding review formula.
	One key Committee recommendation was the appointment of an independent panel to assist the Home Office in formulating the revised proposals. That is not because we do not trust Home Office officials to add up. We need a robust and defensible way of looking at the formula and it needs to be independent. Therefore, the Committee went to the trouble of suggesting the kinds of organisations that should sit on the panel: the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the College of Policing, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Royal Statistical Society. You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, an emphasis on those who can add and therefore crunch statistics. There is an ongoing project between the London School of Economics and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to provide a sound academic basis for identifying the underlying demands on police time. Let us use the expertise of our academic institutions. Such work, when led by the independent panel, could make the Minister’s job even easier.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. When he and his fellow Committee members were looking at the potential balance of an independent panel, did they consider experts on serious and organised crime? It will be important to understand the impact on London’s police force of the pressures the Met is under to help to continue the battle against serious and organised crime.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who always speaks in a calm and reasoned way. I agree with much of what he said.
	I am most grateful to Dorset police, the police force that serves me and my constituents. I would like to put on record, as I always do, my thanks, gratitude and admiration for the men and women who patrol the streets day and night. They keep us safe in our homes and safe on those streets. Our police officers have to attend some appalling incidents, often with little protection—they are not armed. And dare I pay tribute to the female officers, who are not the same size as their gentlemen colleagues? They go in fearlessly to look after us, without any thought for their own safety. I pay tribute to all the police officers in the country, and of course in particular to those in Dorset.
	I am most grateful to Dorset’s police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill—the Minister knows him well through working and corresponding with him; I believe they have a very good relationship, which is excellent news for Dorset police—who has kindly furnished me with most of the facts I am about to divulge. As the Minister knows, Dorset has languished at the bottom of the police funding table for many years, heavily disadvantaged by the current police allocation formula that evolved in turn from the old, standard spending assessment. In last year’s discussions, the Minister described the current formula as
	“complex, opaque and out of date.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 81WS.]
	He was absolutely correct, but it remains effectively unchanged. Even with a review in 2009-10, nothing has ever been implemented. Dorset police remains at the bottom of the pile, a situation that cannot and must not be allowed to continue.
	The current allocation formula is based on four criteria: a central allocation; a needs-based allocation; a relative resources adjustment; and formula damping, which is nothing to do with children or the changing of nappies. The very wording of the criteria is complicated enough. I hope that in looking at the formula, the Minister will make it considerably more simple.
	Unfortunately for Dorset, this model is the worst of all possible worlds. First, our central allocation is historically the lowest in the country. Secondly, our needs-based allocation fails to take into account many of the issues particular to a seaside county, not least tourism on which so much relies. Thirdly, our relative resources adjustment enables us to crawl from bottom to third from bottom when the precept is added in. The current methodology for the RRA, however, is per head of population, whereas council tax from which the precept is raised is levied per household. Let us not forget that the precept is limited to 2% before a local referendum is triggered.
	Fourthly, despite the formula being changed in 2010 and its effect never implemented, Dorset believes that it is still losing out to the tune of £1.9 million annually. It has never received that amount—year after year, £1.9 million. The Minister, who I know is listening intently to my speech, will be aware that £1.9 million is a lot of money for the police force in Dorset who are just trying to do their job.
	While we welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment in November last year to protect police spending in real terms—that announcement was greeted with relief by police chiefs and police and crime commissioners across the country—further savings still have to be made. Worryingly, when the aggregate grant amounts were finalised by the Minister on 4 February—these assume the maximum precept available—Dorset was 0.6% worse off when compared with the dampened figures for 2015-16. It is also regrettable that after last year’s consultation, a glitch in the data has meant that any permanent change to the funding formula will be delayed for another year. I hope that when the Minister sums up at the end, we will hear more about where we stand on the future formula.
	If I may, I shall put Dorset’s case to the Minister. As I have said, it is particularly disadvantaged by the current funding formula on which the funding is based. Tourism is critical to a county such as Dorset, but to date it has been ignored when assessing funding. In common with our strategic partners in Devon and Cornwall, we all find our beautiful surroundings can be a burden as well as a blessing. The current, needs-based element underestimates the pressures that the sheer number of tourists place on policing. The county’s population of 1.1 million rises considerably during the summer months. Visitors stay over 14.5 million nights and day trippers make 26.3 million outings to Dorset every year. This influx is not accounted for and neither is the nature of the county, which is divided into two—the urban part to the east and the rural to the west.
	Policing in Dorset rural costs more—in time, resources and even fuel. The formula takes no account of sparsity. Neither does it cater for the high concentration of bars and clubs in towns like Weymouth and Bournemouth. However, if we look at the number of bars and clubs spread across the county as a whole, the impact on policing so far as the formula is concerned is considerably reduced. I suggest to the Minister that any formula based on a number alone would severely disadvantage our police, so it must continue to include density as well.
	The nature of crime, which the right hon. Member for Leicester East touched on, must also be taken into account. Terrorism, cybercrime, people trafficking and sexual abuse, as well as the need to protect the vulnerable, are all more prevalent than they used to be and consume considerable resources, and they apply to rural Dorset just as much as to any other police area.
	I shall make four suggestions to the Minister so that any new funding formula can follow these four simple principles. First, it should be stable from year to year, avoiding any fluctuations. Secondly, it should be made up of multi-year settlements to allow certainty in planning. Thirdly, it should be transparent and easy to understand—certainly easier to understand than the current formula. Fourthly, any changes should be phased in to make the transition smoother.
	Finally, can we get rid of a hangover from the local authority days, when labour costs were taken into account? Today, given the existing national pay scales across police forces, there should be no difference in labour costs, except where London is concerned. However—this is a case in point—Dorset currently receives nothing, while Hampshire, across the border, receives an extra 4.6%. That simply cannot be right.
	Let me end by saying to the Minister, on behalf of Dorset police, my constituents, and the constituents of other Dorset Members, that any new formula must, please, be more equitable. We are not asking for all the cake; we are just asking for a fair slice of it. Dorset police do an outstanding job, and both they and the residents whom they so ably serve need to know that all relevant factors have been taken into account when a new formula is announced.
	I believe that I am the only Conservative speaker in the debate, and that I shall therefore have the great privilege of listening to the speeches of Opposition Members. I shall aim my next remark at the Hansard staff, who I know are listening to my every word. I can tell them, with great assurance, that they can probably relax for the next hour or two, the reason being that speeches that were made during the Opposition day debate on police funding are likely to be repeated. Let me explain why.
	I have a message here, which was sent to all Labour Members by the shadow Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. It reads as follows:
	“As you have already been a great help in contributing to our debates, would you be so kind as to show your support once again? There will be no need to write a whole new speech as you can reuse previous speaking notes.”
	I shall now sit down, having reassured the Hansard staff that they can relax, have a cup of tea, and prepare to listen to the debate in the knowledge that what is about to be heard may have already been said.

Gareth Thomas: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I have always enjoyed campaigning for the Labour party in his constituency. I strongly support the idea that the next police funding formula should be based partly on the number of bars and clubs in an area, because I think that, on that basis, London would see a substantial increase in its funding.
	Perhaps, as I have started off in a consensual spirit, I might invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that the number of major events taking place in a police force’s area should be taken into account as well. Wembley stadium is very close to my constituency, and requires a substantial police presence to ensure that it is policed properly and effectively.
	I very much enjoyed hearing from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, about the work that the Committee had done. If he will forgive me for saying so, I thought the most worrying part of his speech was his suggestion that, according to some reports, police forces will have no detailed or clear information about the funding formula until 2019. I hope that the Minister will be able to set the Select Committee’s concerns at rest. At the moment, the Metropolitan police has no sense of clarity about its funding for the rest of this Parliament from 2017 onwards. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, there is huge concern about this in London, given the role of the Metropolitan police in tackling serious and organised crime, and its importance in the fight against cybercrime, the increasing importance of which the whole House acknowledges. There is a sense that rising crime in London is putting substantial pressure on the available police resources.
	Two weeks ago, Europol published a major report on the scale of the illegal activity of people trafficking by organised criminal gangs across Europe and beyond. London was identified as one of the centres for trafficking people into this country and in which the criminal gangs manage their operations. This re-emphasises the point that London, through the Metropolitan police, needs as much resource as possible to tackle and bear down on serious and organised crime, particularly if we want to tackle illegal immigration and other forms of organised crime. Hon. Members will be only too aware of the terrorism threat that we face, and I gently suggest that London faces a particular challenge to be tackled through counter-terrorism measures. I hope the Minister will ensure that the funding formula takes account of the particular threat that London faces.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need to ensure that police forces work collaboratively so that there are enough trained individuals.
	I gently suggest to him that the Metropolitan police has particular expertise to share in this regard, and that its training facility at Hendon continues to turn out extremely highly trained and effective police officers to work in the Met and elsewhere. He is absolutely right to suggest that the attacks in Paris last year brought into sharp relief the terrorist threat that we all face here in the UK and, I gently suggest, in London in particular.
	An ongoing challenge for the Metropolitan police is the fact that crime is rising again. Recorded crime is up 5% in the last 12 months. Violent crime in London is up 22%. The Metropolitan police is operating in the context of 1,600 police officer posts having gone since 2010 and almost 3,000 police and community support officer posts having been axed in the last five years. In my constituency during that period, 137 police officers, sergeants and PCSO positions have been axed. We were used to neighbourhood policing involving a sergeant, three or four police constables and three or four PCSOs. We are now reduced to just one PC if we are lucky, and one PCSO if we are very lucky indeed.
	More recently, we have also seen revealed the substantial pressures on the Met, which have led to more and more police officers from the suburbs, particularly Harrow, having to be moved from the borough where they normally do their policing work to police major events or to respond to rising crime in inner London. In the past 12 months, on occasion, 22% of police officer time in Harrow has been abstracted to other boroughs—in other words, 22% of the time Harrow police officers have worked has been spent not policing the streets of Harrow, as it should have been, but policing other streets in London. The Minister may argue that that is an operational issue for the Metropolitan police chief, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and I would accept that it is, but it is an operational issue being driven by the shortage of resources at his disposal.
	Harrow is one of the safest boroughs in London, but we still face significant crime problems, there is still a significant fear of crime, and significant problems with antisocial behaviour remain. My constituents and other constituents in Harrow want to know that our police officers are out policing our streets, instead of policing streets elsewhere in London. What is particularly concerning my constituents, such that I felt it necessary to intervene in this debate, is a proposal to merge Harrow’s police force with those in Barnet and in Brent to create a tri-borough command. The proposal would axe two of the three borough commanders in this area and create just one borough commander for the three areas. Brent has a bigger crime problem than Harrow and its force has the particular challenge of managing events at Wembley stadium. Barnet also faces a very different set of challenges and, again, is an area with slightly higher crime than Harrow. My constituents fear, rightly, that if there is a tri-borough commander, Harrow police will be more easily deployed into Brent or Barnet and away from Harrow.
	Given the lack of investment in Harrow police station compared with that in the Wembley and Colindale police stations, my constituents fear that if the tri-borough proposal goes ahead, there will be a question mark over the future of Harrow police station. If the Minister does not feel that he can intervene to reassure my constituents in today’s debate, and I recognise his reluctance to do that, I ask him to have a quiet word with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to encourage him to drop this plan for a tri-borough command and reassure my constituents that there will still be one borough commander accountable to us in Harrow for the quality and effectiveness of policing in our borough, instead of our having to share this with those other boroughs. On that point, I welcome the Select Committee’s report and look forward to the Minister’s response.

James Berry: I welcome this report, and let me start by saying that the Minister was brave to tackle the issue of police funding, for two reasons. The first is that it is always going to be difficult to resolve a funding formula without acrimony unless one has at one’s disposal sufficient resources to fund every force to the level of the best funded; clearly, those resources were not going to be available to him. The second reason is that funding a police force across the whole UK—or certainly in England and Wales—is always going to be intensely difficult, given the great diversity in policing needs across the counties of those countries. But it is right that taxpayer funds for an essential service such as the police are allocated fairly and transparently.
	I agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that the police need to provide evidence of the work that they actually do. Often that work will go well beyond what we understand to be traditional policing work in the office of constable. The police pick up a large amount of slack that is not picked up by other public services or private sector organisations, and they do a huge amount more than many people appreciate.
	The National Audit Office published a report showing that a significant number of police forces were not aware of the demand on their own services. It is incumbent on police forces to ensure that they are aware of that demand, whether for classic policing or wider functions. They must make their demands clear to the Home Office, and, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, the Home Office must then make it clear to those forces what services they are actually funded to perform.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he recognise that cuts being made in other public services—in the area of mental health, for example, where there are problems in accessing beds—is putting pressure on police forces up and down the country, as in extreme circumstances they have to use cells to house people with mental health problems?

James Berry: In fact, there is more mental health funding for front-line policing than there has ever been. It is very important that the police work in tandem with clinical commissioning groups to ensure, for example, that there are nurses who can go out on patrol with them to tackle mental health issues, rather than bringing in those people to police cells—often the very worst place for someone suffering from a mental ill health episode. In my neighbouring borough of Richmond, I know that the police are already doing that in conjunction with the CCG.
	There was a pause in the review of the funding formula, the financial implications of which were worked out by one police and crime commissioner. I did pause before signing up to the suggestion in our report that the likely figures should be revealed before the end of the consultation. The aim is to arrive at a sound set of principles, but it is difficult to obtain a balanced response from people who stand to lose out from an allocation based on a principle, however sound it might be, because their elected responsibility as police and crime commissioners is to maximise the amount of funding available to them to perform their statutory functions.
	The funding formula needs to recognise the diversity of policing in the UK, which is very difficult when we are trying to reach a formula at a national level. Our report references the need for additional funding in areas where policing of minority communities is a prevalent issue. In my constituency of Kingston, we have the largest Korean population in Europe. We have an excellent Korean liaison officer provided by the police, which would not be needed elsewhere in the country, and they provide a vital function in ensuring a link between the police and the Korean community.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) made it clear that there are many other issues in London that provide a positive case for ensuring that the capital grant in London is protected and that the special position of the Metropolitan police is respected. The issue of diverse communities was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, and the issue of policing pubs and bars was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). That is plainly volume policing.
	We need more police officers on the streets at kicking-out times for the pubs and clubs, which are more numerous in London than anywhere else in the country. The same applies to the threat of terrorism, which is most significant in London. I am pleased that the Metropolitan police have responded to that matter in the light of the Paris atrocities by significantly increasing the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers keeping us safe.
	The same applies to the various types of crime tackled centrally on behalf of other police forces, such as online fraud. We have seen a massive explosion in such fraud over the past four or five years and although much more needs to be done and much more funding needs to be made available to deal with it anything like comprehensively enough, a large part of it is tackled by the Metropolitan police’s very impressive Operation FALCON and the City of London police’s Action Fraud. Such crime is perpetrated across the country, but is largely dealt with by the police in our two capital police forces. There is a need to protect the special status of London in any new funding formula.
	Where I depart from the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrow West is where he painted a rather less than rosy picture of the state of policing in London. Although there has been a reduction in officer numbers, a less rigid approach to neighbourhood policing has allowed a more nimble model that certainly works well in my borough of Kingston and elsewhere across London. Of course, crime has dropped dramatically over the past five years and we have the police to thank for that. Even if they have lower overall numbers, they have a significantly larger proportion on the frontline and do a fantastic job that has resulted in a massive reduction in crime.

James Berry: I know that locally there will be mixed feelings if that is proposed in south-west London, but I do know that the reforms brought in by this Government and the previous Government mean that these matters are entirely in the hands of the local police body, which in the case of London is MOPAC, or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, rather than the Policing Minister. They are an operational matter for MOPAC and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I have not seen the proposals yet, but I would certainly want to be reassured that there was no less democratic accountability and no less focus on local policing if that was going to happen in Kingston. I will wait to see the proposals and I am sure that all London MPs will have something to say if and when they are published by the Met police.
	The Committee’s report records a rather unhappy period for the Home Office in which the Minister came to this House and apologised unreservedly, which was recognised in the report. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely committed to putting the situation right. The Government are to be commended for attempting to create a fair funding formula, which is recognised in the report, and that is something that previous Governments have not tried to do.
	The terms of the funding formula are yet to be decided. It is no easy task; I certainly do not envy the Minister. Indeed, it is such a tricky task that both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Policing Minister cannot be in the Chamber for this important debate. No doubt they are scratching their heads and working out what their alternative funding formula would be. I welcome the Home Affairs Committee’s report and am pleased to have participated in its production. I am sure that the Minister will give it his full consideration in deciding the eventual outcome and I am sure that although there will be some winners and some losers, the public will be able to see that the funding formula at which the Minister arrives is fair to all forces. I hope that it will protect London, along with the special and vital functions performed by the Metropolitan and City of London police to keep us safe.

Gavin Shuker: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and it is not lost on me that quite a self-selecting group of MPs has turned out today, all of whom will probably try to follow a similar formula of saying that the funding formula does not respond well to the challenges of their communities. The cumulative nature of the speeches, however, should not necessarily detract from the veracity of their argument. Clearly, across this House, many of us have deep concerns about our police forces and about how they are treated under the current regime. There are winners and losers and, dare I say it, in the Chamber today there are more losers than usual.
	I am no different from other Members. For me, the acid test of whether a funding formula is truly fair is Bedfordshire. We have lost 171 officers since 2010, and the number of police community support officers has halved from 108 to 53 in that period. In my community in Luton, where we face all sorts of challenges, the effect of those cuts is that neighbourhood policing is practically non-existent. In 2012 we had PCs working alongside PCSOs in Luton. In other words, we had proper neighbourhood policing. That was true of many other parts of the county too.
	The old police authority, looking at the scale of cuts coming through, proposed to remove those officers and to cut PCSOs. When the police and crime commissioner was elected in 2012 he put a halt to that process and protected numbers, but, with £20 million of cuts defined, they had to go. The police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire has said:
	“The impact in Luton is no different from the rest of the county. We’ve had no choice other than to strip away preventative, problem-solving neighbourhood policing everywhere to the barest minimum because the alternative is even worse. But current projections mean we need to find £11 million savings and this may mean reducing the establishment by 44”
	in the next three years.
	The chief constable, Jon Boutcher, estimates that Bedfordshire needs another 300 officers even to reach the average number in police forces in the country. Why? We are the county with the fourth highest gun crime, the fifth highest serious acquisitive crime and the seventh highest knife crime figures in the country, but we get by on just 169 officers per 100,000 population. To put that in context, the average is 232 across all forces, rural and urban, and the Metropolitan police, about which we have already heard, has 388 officers per 100,000. In simple terms—it is easy to get lost in the numbers—the residents in Luton whom I represent, if treated as though they were, say, 20 minutes down the train line in north London, could expect an additional 482 officers protecting them. That is the scale of the gap.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely glad I took the intervention, because the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which he has made alongside me and the four other Bedfordshire MPs, both Conservative and Labour, to the Policing Minister, who has kindly given us an audience in the past and, I hope, will do so in the future to make the point that ours is essentially an urban force that is funded as a rural one. The nature of Luton in particular and of Bedford and some of the smaller areas to the north of the county, means that there is a huge disparity in levels of crime, especially the crimes that I mentioned. I will continue to make this point.
	This is not a dry argument about formulae. Last week I sat in the house of my constituent Mrs Patel. She is a shop owner. Just before Christmas she was attacked, dragged to the back of her shop and cut by a man wielding a knife. That vicious attack has robbed her of her work and her confidence, and has left deep scars not just mentally but physically. There is only one thing more horrendous than the attack on Mrs Patel in her shop: it is the fact that just a few short years ago, in the same shop and in the same way, her husband was violently attacked and stabbed to death. She wants to know why the officers who used to patrol the area where her shop is and where she lives are not patrolling any more. Her son wants to know why it took so long during this violent attack for a police car to respond. He wants to know why the man who subjected her to such a terrifying attack—who put a knife against her throat and who, it was clear to her, was attempting to send her to the same place as her husband—was not apprehended in the midst of it. The debate is not, therefore, just about a formula; it is about my constituents’ safety and their ability to live their lives without fear of threat.
	The argument I advance—that fair funding for Bedfordshire is the acid test for the new police funding formula—is backed up by the context. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), Bedfordshire is an urban force funded in a rural way. Luton and, to a lesser extent, Bedford face vastly different challenges from the rest of this rural county. Despite the obvious electoral benefit of moving significant resources into urban areas, it is to the credit of the Labour police and crime commissioner, Olly Martins, that he has, given the challenges, been able to move forward with plans that still provide for a significant rural presence.
	As a community, we face all sorts of challenges. We face down extremism daily. The far right—the English Defence League, Britain First and associated groups—regularly target our town. At just one protest last year, a group of about 150 or 200 drunken men led to a policing bill of £320,000, which had to be picked up locally. Of course, there is also the ongoing challenge of infiltration by extremists of the Muslim community.
	We also have to defend major transport infrastructure, with London Luton airport, which is in my constituency, carrying upwards of 10 million passengers a year. The east midlands and west coast main lines pass through the constituency, as do the two principal roads between London and the north. Despite all that, Bedfordshire has to get by on similar police funding and, therefore, with similar police strength as Dorset—we have heard about that already—Sussex and Hertfordshire.
	Only one thing that could undermine my argument, so let me pre-empt it: a failure since 2010 to make significant changes, efficiencies and innovations in the way in which Bedfordshire operates. In other words, we could have buried our heads in the sand and said, “The problem is purely the Government cutting spending.” However, that is simply not true.
	The force has already made £25 million of savings, and it expects to make another £11 million in the coming three years. Under the leadership of the police and crime commissioner, the tri-force alliance between Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire should produce about £10 million of savings for Bedfordshire alone. A bid is in with the Home Office police innovation fund to support blue-light collaboration with fire and ambulance services. There is increased use of special constables to support Community Watch, and new technology, including smartphones, slate personal computers, automotive telematics and even drones is being rolled out to save money and police time.
	At the same time, we have seen increased transparency—for example, through the use of body-worn cameras—which is vital to maintain the community’s involvement and the sense in which they are protected by the police.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost savings between Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. That is about cost sharing, but does he agree that there is still the revenue that accrues to Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, which is significantly in excess of the financial resources that come into Bedfordshire? It is such a pity that we are not able to encourage those counties to draw together with us. Would he like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether there could be Home Office proposals to push forward greater collaboration and greater sharing of revenue as well as costs?

Gavin Shuker: Absolutely. There is far greater space for collaboration. Equally, however, there are challenges for a force such as Bedfordshire, and I have not painted a particularly rosy picture of our finances and the challenges we face. There needs to be Government influence over these measures—these things cannot just be left at local level. Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire have had two good police and crime commissioners who have been keen to work with Bedfordshire and have made really decent strides in doing so. Ultimately, however, they are accountable to their own residents for making sure that they get the best possible deal.
	I want to signal not only the innovation that has gone on in Bedfordshire but my own willingness to explore innovation on, dare I say it, a statesmanlike basis rather than merely withdrawing into oppositional politics. It is important that through this process we get the funding of Bedfordshire right, first and foremost, and then we can look at further collaboration down the line. The police and crime commissioner in this area has the third cheapest operation in the country. In his first three years in office, he saved more than £200,000 in comparison with the old police authority. This is not a case of a profligate police and crime commissioner trying to make a particular case to Government.
	This issue has spanned the terms of Labour and Conservative Governments. Like the Home Affairs Committee, we welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage to get the funding formula right. We are doing all the things that we are being asked to do, and doing the right thing by our residents. Everything that would be expected of Bedfordshire is being done. The acid test of this police formula is whether Bedfordshire and other significantly disadvantaged forces are properly funded, alongside other police forces. It is now time for the formula, the Minister and the Government to do right by us.

Steve McCabe: I want to begin by stating what Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary for West Midlands police, Wendy Williams, said about the force in her most recent report. She believes that it is
	“exceptionally well prepared to face future financial challenges.”
	She says that it has “robust management” of its current demand, finances and plans for change, and that it has embarked on an impressive five-year change programme to transform how it intends to deliver policing. In last year’s Valuing the Police programme, which considered how forces met the challenge of the first spending review, West Midlands police was judged to be outstanding. I thank the Labour police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, our former chief constable, Chris Sims, and our new chief constable, Dave Thompson, for doing such a good job on our behalf.
	The Government have suggested that west midlands Labour MPs are wrong to complain that our police are being short-changed. The Minister thinks that West Midlands police is squirrelling away money and sitting on huge reserves. Let us look at the reserves of the largest force in England and Wales outside the Met. Not only does it serve a population of nearly 3 million people and an area of some 348 square miles, but, as HMIC notes, the area served by the West Midlands force faces the most significant challenge of terrorism and extremism outside London—a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). The force is in fact a national lead in the delivery of counter-terrorism.
	The force complies with the requirement to hold a general reserve—in its case, about £12 million, which can be compared with figures of about £26 million and £23 million for the Met and West Yorkshire police. Of its remaining reserves, about £10 million is set aside to address redundancy and equal pay, in a force still suffering the fall-out from the “A19” forced retirements. A further £12 million is set aside for the self-funded insurance reserve. I expect the Minister is familiar with the problems of insurance for police vehicles and how most forces hold a reserve to cover this. About £3 million is set aside for the uniforms and protective equipment reserve, which is not a high figure for the second largest force in the country; about £2.1 million for the major incident reserve; and about £18 million for the capital reserve. The Minister will be aware that his officials advised that forces should prepare for a reduction in the capital grant in this year’s settlement. I understand that the capital grant for the west midlands is now about £2.9 million—a cut of about £2 million on previous years.
	Like Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, I see a force with robust management of demand and finances, and one that has proved to be outstanding in facing up to the challenges that austerity has imposed on it. It is misleading for anyone to suggest that it is sitting on massive reserves, and I invite the Minister to look again at the figures before anyone in the Government is tempted to repeat such a charge.
	On the question of the formula, may I invite the Minister to clear up the situation with regard to claims by the Conservative PCC for Northamptonshire that he has been led to expect a transfer of funding from urban forces such as West Midlands police to rural forces such as his? Last week, the Home Secretary did not feel able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that she was not planning such a transfer of funds. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to come clean about his intentions?

Kevan Jones: We could ask the same question about the local government formula, which gives more money to Surrey than to deprived areas such as Durham and my hon. Friend’s area. The suspicion is that this funding formula will also be used to divert money away from Labour areas to Conservative areas.

Steve McCabe: If we look at past form, we will see that that is certainly the implication. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) implore the Minister to think again about fair funding, on the basis that a fairer funding arrangement would give the force in Dorset an extra £1.9 million a year. I remind the Minister that, under the same fairer funding formula, the west midlands would get an extra £40 million year. When it comes to the transfer of resources, I hope he will bear that in mind.
	The reality is that, far from getting extra funding, over the past five years our force has had to contend with £180 million of cuts—the highest in the country. The workforce have been reduced by 3,000 and the incoming chief constable has been clear that the force will need to reorganise to “cope with the gaps”—those are his words—that it now has to carry. The mistakes in the formula mean that forces are now planning against a one-year rather than four-year profile, which will be a much more difficult challenge. I would like to hear the Minister explain how he thinks the chief constable of West Midlands police is meant to plug those gaps.
	I want to be clear that I do not deride the Home Secretary for saying that volunteers with specialist skills in IT or accountancy might be useful in helping to tackle cybercrime. I am curious to know why it is necessary to create a new position of police support volunteer, rather than simply recruiting more special constables with particular skills and expertise. Is that part of a wider volunteer plan?

Steve McCabe: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and perhaps he will show us the consultation that took place to show the support that exists for the new role of police support volunteer. I would welcome the opportunity to have a look at that.
	To go back to funding for a second, does the Minister really consider it a triumph for his colleagues the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) to claim credit for a 4.6% rise in the police precept paid by the taxpayers of the west midlands to make up for the money being given to places such as Surrey and Northamptonshire? Is that how we will be forced to plug the gap—by paying more pounds for fewer police in our area?
	We are repeatedly advised that crime has fallen and therefore, by implication, the Government’s cuts are justified. I assume that the Minister does not dispute the claims of the Office for National Statistics that crime rose by 6% nationally for the year ending September 2015, and that violence against the person rose by 13%. I do not dispute that some types of crime have fallen, but I am not interested in trying to manipulate the figures to mislead anyone. Is it not important that the Government give a full picture and come clean on what the figures actually mean?

Patricia Gibson: We know that the UK Government have consulted on the funding formula for police forces in England and Wales, as they seek to simplify funding arrangements for the service. We also know that any changes in the funding arrangements have been delayed until 2016-17. Indeed, that was set out very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Because of Barnett consequentials, which are so important for funding services across the UK, I want to say a few words about policing in Scotland.
	As many in the House will be aware, the SNP Scottish Government have carried out a reorganisation of policing in Scotland, with eight area forces merged into a unitary force in 2013. The Scottish Government now fund policing directly through the Scottish Police Authority. It is worth pointing out that that had cross-party support, although—perhaps this is in their nature—the Lib Dems subsequently withdraw their support. I would point out, if I may, that in Scotland, despite the major reform implemented by the Scottish Government, which has delivered significant savings, the Scottish Government have continued to protect their commitment to 1,000 additional police officers, all in the teeth of harsh Westminster cuts.
	There is no doubt that we are having to make some very hard decisions in Scotland about the police budget, but, under the recent budget, the police revenue budget will be protected in real terms in every year of the next Parliament, with a boost of £100 million between 2016 and 2021. However, it must be said that some of the hard decisions the Scottish Government have to make are a direct consequence of the UK Government’s refusal to give Police Scotland the same VAT status as every other police authority in the United Kingdom. The same applies to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

Mike Penning: rose—

Patricia Gibson: No. Perhaps the Minister will let me finish my point before he starts chuntering. The Scottish Government agreed to that because it had no choice. They are working within the constraints imposed on them by Westminster. I should say—I am moving forward now—that like so many other deals in Scotland, it was imposed by a UK Government who are detached from Scotland and neither understand nor care about Scotland’s public services. I shall leave the matter there.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Mike Penning: rose—

Patricia Gibson: If you do not like giving fair funding formulas to Scotland, you had your chance last September, when you kicked and screamed to hold on to us. In the light of that decision last September, all we ask for is fairness. We are of course a valued and equal partner—well, let us be so.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Mike Penning: rose—

Kevan Jones: No you haven’t. You’ve just ignored it.

Patricia Gibson: I would simply add that holding an axe over someone’s head because they do not—

Lindsay Hoyle: As you well know from the numerous—[Interruption.] I will deal with it, Mr Arkless. It will be easier if I do. As you well know, Mr Jones, that is not a point of order. If we were to rely on something that we believed not to be correct, we would never—[Interruption.] We would never, ever get through a debate. You and other Members in this House will continue to have different views. We will not always agree. On this occasion, it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Patricia Gibson: rose—

Patricia Gibson: I was simply going to add that anyone in this Chamber would think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a unique VAT charge for Scotland’s police force and fire service—

Patricia Gibson: The Scottish Police Authority, uniquely and therefore unfairly, is the only police authority in the entire UK—

Patricia Gibson: No, thank you. I want to progress beyond this point.
	Uniquely and therefore unfairly, the Scottish Police Authority is the only police authority in the United Kingdom that cannot recover VAT. It is therefore liable for an annual cost of £25 million, which is equivalent to almost the entire forecast savings gap. Importantly, it seems that the Treasury based its decision on the fact that single services will be funded by central Government. However, the Treasury introduced a new section in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to ensure that central Government-funded academy schools in England could recover VAT. Why is there not the same provision for the Scottish police and Scottish fire and rescue services?

Kevan Jones: Because you didn’t ask for it!

Patricia Gibson: Well, I’m asking for it now. Why do I mention all this, apart from the fact that it is about fairness?

Kevan Jones: Because you’re a victim.

Patricia Gibson: Apart from the fairness issue, I mention this matter today because this is a debate about managing budgets, and Scotland is being short-changed by the unique VAT charge that is levied on its police and fire services, taking significant funds out of those important and hard-pressed budgets. It is simply not fair. The people of Scotland take a very dim view of it indeed, as well they should.
	Despite the budgetary pressures that Westminster is imposing on Scotland, with a real-terms reduction in Scotland’s budget of £1.5 billion or a 5.7% cut in the funding for day-to-day public services over the next four years as a result of the comprehensive spending review, crime in Scotland is at its lowest level in over 41 years. Violent crime is down by 55% since 2006-07.
	I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that the only certainties in life were death and taxation. He was certainly right about the first, but what has happened with multinational companies in the UK under successive Westminster Governments may have proven him to be a bit off the mark on the second. There is another certainty in life that Mr Franklin overlooked, which is that the one thing that is sure not to be debated during a Westminster debate on estimates is the estimates. The issue of debating the estimates may not exercise the minds of the general public, but I believe that is because it is not well known outside this place how little scrutiny there is of the spending plans of the respective Departments. The scrutiny is negligible and that has suited successive Governments. If the public knew just how inscrutable the process was, I am sure they would have something to say about it.
	The supply estimates process is very technical and that is how spending is approved by Parliament, but we must remember in this debate that during the debates on English votes for English laws, the Leader of the House noted the possibility of a review of this process, while at the same time being adamant that the estimates process already allowed us to affect the Barnett consequentials. I simply say that the Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is reviewing the estimates process. We have heard from many distinguished and learned experts—far more learned and distinguished than I, if you can believe that, Mr Deputy Speaker. People from all sides of the political spectrum have argued when discussing EVEL that the estimates process is simply not fit for purpose.
	Perhaps I may crave your indulgence a little longer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and point out that the way this House deals with the supply and estimates procedure is simply not sustainable. We need proper debate about the supply procedure to achieve clarity on Barnett consequentials. The scrutiny of the estimates process is simply not robust enough, and this Parliament—the so-called mother of Parliaments—has the least scrutinised spending arrangements in the western world. The process is such that the procedures simply do not give MPs a full opportunity to scrutinise Barnett consequentials of England-only, or England and Wales-only, legislation. Such scrutiny is required in a mature and healthy democracy, and a consequence of EVEL should be reform of the supply process, and that the interests of this matter be a “process of development”. That expression is a direct quote from the Leader of the House, who promised and envisaged that on 22 October 2015. Mr Speaker said that he could not conceive of any Bill that did not have direct Barnett consequentials, and that if there is such a Bill, we Scottish Members could take part in the estimates—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady craved my indulgence, which I have been very good and given. She answered her own question, which is that the Procedure Committee, rather than today’s debate, is the right vehicle in which to take up this issue. I have allowed some indulgence, which I think was only fair, but we must move back to the core of the debate.

Patricia Gibson: I take on board what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, and having craved your indulgence and maximised the level of the patience that you kindly showed me, I was about to return to the police funding formula.
	Any discussion of policing budgets in England must in all fairness and justice consider any effects and consequences for Scotland, not least VAT, which is a running sore of injustice in Scotland. Our police in Scotland do an excellent job, but they must have a level playing field. When considering police budgets, I ask all Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies to remember the inconvenient truth that the police in Scotland have a VAT ball and chain round their ankle, which picks money out of the pocket of the police budget to the tune of £25 million every year. No other police authority in the United Kingdom has to contend with that. Saying that Scotland accepted it is simply not good enough. Any reasonable minded person would demand that it stop, and it should stop now. After all, Scotland is supposed to be a valued and equal partner in this Union, and there is nothing equal about the VAT burden.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) prayed for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker—but indulgence was not what I was praying for. What we have just seen is what we usually get from the SNP when they turn on something that they agreed to with the victim mentality that, as I have said on numerous occasions, it has raised to a new art form in this House. We end up with the idea that somehow this measure is everybody else’s fault, but the hon. Lady’s Government agreed to it so I do not think that she can try to delude electors in Scotland that it is somehow the fault of English Members and the Government at Westminster. Apart from the sense of grievance, which we have heard on many occasions from the Scottish National party in the House in recent weeks and months, the hon. Lady did not cover anything that was relevant to the debate.
	I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report on reform of the funding formula, and I pay tribute to its Chair for his opening speech. It has been said numerous times that this issue needs to be considered for years and in a logical way. I do not disagree with that, because we must consider in detail how we fund our police, as that is an important issue for our constituents. I do not believe that how the Government went about that had anything to do with having a serious hard look at putting forward a fair funding formula.
	One of the Committee’s criticisms—it was made not only by chief constables but by many PCCs—was that the consultation was rushed. It started on 21 July 2015 and closed on 15 September, a period of eight weeks. The Minister then wrote to PCCs and chief constables on 8 October, three weeks after the consultation closed, providing detailed refinements, setting out for the first time indicative force levels and inviting further comment.

Kevan Jones: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what was going on. We were to have the formula wrapped up going into the spending review, but what we are in store for is exactly what has happened in local government funding. We did not get a fair local government funding formula: we have a skewed formula that moves resources from the most deprived communities in this country to—lo and behold!—the more wealthy parts, which are represented by Conservatives.
	In local government funding, just by chance—hon. Members should not ask me how this has happened— 85% of the gainers happened to be in Conservative seats. I suspect that that is what was going on with the police funding formula. The Government had not reckoned with the PCC for Devon and Cornwall, who questioned the process.
	We must also put the formula against the other things that the Government and their previous incarnation, the coalition, have done to policing in this country.

Steve McCabe: Like me, I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that the Minister is a pretty straightforward guy. Given that we have ended up in this situation and that we have been unable to resolve it—it will be four years before police forces can plan a long-term budget—would not the fair thing be to remove any doubt or suspicion and subject the formula to independent scrutiny? In that way, we could all be absolutely certain that it was fair.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend—I will come back to that in a minute—but the real issue is that what was envisaged is exactly what we have seen in local government. Under the new formula, the resources would not have been devolved to the areas that needed them, but the blame for the cuts would have been. The Government have used that formula for many years now.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That was exactly what was designed in the formula. The Government were found out by the PCC for Devon and Cornwall. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said about the Minister, but he is just a small cog in the huge machine. The machine is about devolving blame but not resources to local authorities. They devolve the blame to local decision makers and point the finger at them when cuts have to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the real villain of the piece, can stand back and say, “Not me, guv!”
	Since 2010, £2.2 billion—22% of the funding—has been taken out of police budgets in this country. I do not accept that an average constituent of mine understands how police funding is arrived at. It is unique in the sense that two-thirds of it—the bulk of it—comes from central Government. Many people feel that what they pay, for example in local rates, pays for local services. We know that that is not the case.
	The system is very uneven. Some authorities are able to raise more in local precept than others. Areas such as mine are unable to raise a large amount. In Durham, 55% of properties are band A, so a 2% increase in the budget would raise nothing like the amount that could be raised in Surrey or in other parts of the country. That leads me to one of the issues highlighted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement: the ability to argue that some of the lower precept local authorities can now not be bound by the 2% limit but by a £5 increase.
	Again, all that does is help the wealthier areas. If we were allowed to do that in Durham, it would raise hardly anything compared with some of the more well-off forces such as Essex, Herefordshire and others. Again, that needs to be looked at.

Jeff Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another issue that relates to vulnerable and deprived areas, which is the top-slicing of grants? Next year, there will be a 69% rise in the top-slicing of police grants. In my area of Greater
	Manchester, that means a reduction of £16.2 million. Does he agree that we need an assurance that top-slicing for national projects, such as the transformation fund, does not come from local police grants?

Kevan Jones: I agree. That is another sleight of hand by the Chancellor. We have only to look at local government and the new homes bonus, which is trumpeted as a great opportunity for local authorities to raise money. What do the Government do, but top-slice it in exactly the way my hon. Friend describes?
	In Durham, the ability to raise extra funds from precept is limited and any future formula needs to take that into account. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that policing would be protected and that money would fall from heaven. I am sorry, but that is not going to happen. As my hon. Friend says, there will be top-slicing. It is clear, from what police and crime commissioners have said, that there will still be pressure this year on the police budget. Any type of formula needs to consider the local tax yield and the ability of places such as Durham to raise additional expenditure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) raised the issue of disproportionate cuts. In Durham, since 2010 we have lost 350 officers and another 25 police community support officers. Before anyone says that Durham is a profligate, fat and inefficient police force, let me say that it is the only one in the country to receive three “outstanding” ratings for efficiency from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) highlighted in his speech, great steps have been taken by police forces, working with local authorities, health services and other police forces, to drive up efficiency. I am not opposed to that—indeed, it is to be welcomed. However, police forces will come to the point where they cannot be any more efficient. At the end of the day, local people want police on the streets. They want police who are responsive and they want localised policing. That cannot be done. There comes a point in the process where the service that local people desire cannot be delivered.
	We have seen the same happen in local government, where many local authorities are being pared back to delivering statutory services alone. Are we going to see a similar situation in policing? If a drive to a small state Conservative Britain is the Government’s ultimate aim, they need to be honest about that, rather than hide behind this type of funding formula.
	The police community, local politicians and police and crime commissioners have lost all faith that the Home Office can conduct this review properly and fairly. I support what the Select Committee has suggested—taking it out of the hands of the Home Office. Otherwise, it will lead to a suspicion that the Chancellor is in the background and wants to use this as a way of driving out not efficiency but cash from the police service.
	It is possibly a terrible thing to say, but I think it is true that if it had not been for the tragic events in Paris, we would have faced even deeper cuts to police forces. With the greatest respect, it was not down to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) or the Labour party that this U-turn took place; it was because of the Government’s fear that after the tragic events in Paris, there would be an outcry if they persisted with the cuts they intended to put through.
	There is a drive for simplicity in the formula. I have always been in favour of making things as simple as possible in public policy. If making things simpler makes them less accurate and less transparent, however, I would be against it. Clearly, the interaction with other budgets is important—I mentioned mental health earlier—and it needs to be looked at. A policing element is needed. We cannot say to mental health trusts, “You will have to pay for part of your local area’s policing”. It is important that the interconnections are taken into account.
	Deprivation is another crucial issue. Durham is a rural county, but under these proposals it is obviously not rural enough—or perhaps I should say that it is not blue enough—to get much money out of making representations about the formula. Rural areas such as Durham are unique. I describe parts of County Durham and parts of my own constituency as being very rural yet having urban problems. The problems would be recognised in any urban area—drug and alcohol-related crime and even organised crime, along with deprivation and the high level of crime associated with it. That is why we need to take into account not only rurality, but the realities of what is happening on the ground.
	The argument about using licensed premises as an indicator of alcohol problems is, I think, complete nonsense. The public image that comes through from many of our national newspapers is that the real crime problems arise as people spill out of wine bars after a happy hour. No, they do not. People should speak to the police locally. One of the biggest issues is alcohol in the home, but how to reflect that in a formula is going to be difficult. Reflecting alcohol disturbance in an area according to the number of bars in it will not provide an answer to the problem.
	Let me finish by paying tribute to the men and women of Durham constabulary, who have had a tough last six years. There are 350 former colleagues who no longer pound the beat in Durham, yet it has met the challenges when it comes to driving efficiency and interacting with the community, which has been reflected in the HMRC report that rates the force as outstanding. I pay tribute to Chief Constable Mike Barton and to the Labour police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg. They have worked closely together not only to drive innovation and efficiency in the delivery of service, but to look at innovative ways of providing alternative justice, for example. They are making a real impact locally: when initiatives are launched, they are not always popular, but they are having a real impact on the ground.
	Finally, let me touch on the relationship with other forces. I am in favour of reducing costs, and if Durham police can work with those on Teesside to form a joint firearms or dog handling unit that is great, but I have a problem with some of the proposals to merge other blue-light services that the Government are driving through. Obviously some efficiency savings can be made through the merging of back-office functions in, for instance, the fire and rescue services, but we must be careful not to repeat the imposition of cuts on those services on the grounds that their job can somehow be merged with, or massaged into, a policing role. If sensible things can be done in back offices, I am all for that, but blurring the edges when it comes to the front-line delivery of fire services, and other services, is a different matter altogether.
	I hope that we have a proper look at the funding formula, and the sooner we do it, the better. Any review must be independent, because the Home Office thinks that credibility has been shredded. The one thing that I do not trust at all is an arrangement whereby the Conservative Government and the Chancellor are behind this, driving forward not a fairer funding formula but a formula that will divert resources from areas like mine and into leafy Tory suburbs.

Gerald Jones: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak today. I did not speak in the recent debate on police funding, but many concerns were expressed by Labour Members then, and those concerns remain. There is much uncertainty and worry in police forces across the country about current and future funding.
	It was just a few months ago, in November, that Members were in the Chamber making a case for policing to be protected from the ravages of Tory cuts. Labour Members joined others, and people throughout the country, in raising cuts about policing cuts generally. The Government had originally planned to cut police budgets by more than 20%, but at the last moment the Chancellor announced, in his spending review statement to the House, that there would be no cuts, adding that there would be real-terms protection for police funding. However, it seems that the Tories are still intent on cutting police funding. Today we are discussing reform of the police funding formula. The Government may have tried to deflect attention from what they are doing by saying that there will be no cuts, but the fact remains that the level of police funding to which the Government are committed for the next few years will go down.
	We know that the Tories had to cancel the last review of the police funding formula last autumn because they had miscalculated, using the wrong figures. Last week, Labour pleaded with the Government to think again before imposing further cuts and forcing local people to pay more to make up for them, because they are expecting police forces to raise extra money in local taxes to compensate for those Tory cuts. No matter how the Government try to dress things up, a cut is a cut. What we need is a fair funding formula—a formula that is fair to the less affluent, high-need, high-crime areas—but we are not being given that now.
	I speak as someone who grew up with a huge amount of respect for the police, and for the job that they do. I worked closely with neighbourhood policing teams for many years in my previous role as a county councillor, and I have always appreciated the professionalism of police officers who put their lives on the line every day. Unfortunately, under this Government we have seen the break-up of the neighbourhood policing model that was the last Labour Government’s achievement. Neighbourhood policing brought police officers out of their stations and into communities, building up trust and bringing down crime, but the positive steps that were taken under Labour are being reversed.
	If the Government proceed with their cuts, and unless a proper funding formula is developed, matters will become worse. In the last six months alone, a further 1,300 police officers have been lost; that is the equivalent of a whole force in some areas. The Tories had already cut police funding by 25% during the last Parliament, and the most recent losses bring the total reduction in the number of police officers to a staggering 18,000 since 2010. Officers are already paying the price for the Government’s actions. The reduction in their numbers has put greater pressure on those who remain, who have found their workloads soaring and workplace pressures intensifying. For instance, 27% are working more than 49 hours a week, which is over the legal limit.
	Crime might have fallen in some areas, and the police are trying to reduce crime, but policing is about much more than whether crime is falling. It is about visible policing and providing reassurance to the residents of our communities. We also know that crime is changing, rather than simply falling. When the 6 million cybercrimes and online crimes are included in the official crime statistics, crime levels nearly double.
	With the most serious and violent crimes on the rise again, this is the worst possible time to cut police funding, but that is what this Chancellor is doing. He said he would protect police budgets, but we are facing more years of cuts. Make no mistake, the police service is under pressure and the morale of police officers is at a very low ebb. Police officers I have spoken to feel that the Government do not understand or appreciate the passion and commitment that they have for the job they do. We should be focusing on cutting crime, not on cutting the police.
	One of the few areas to have seen an increase in the policing family is the police and community support officers in Wales. Since 2010, South Wales police has increased the number of PCSOs by 77 and Gwent has seen an increase of 35. This is due to funding support from the Welsh Labour Government, who have supported a total of 500 PCSOs across Wales despite significant cuts to their own budget by the Tory Government. My constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is covered by two forces: South Wales on the Merthyr side and Gwent on the Rhymney side. In the next financial year, South Wales police will see a real-terms cut of £3 million and Gwent a cut of £1.5 million. The need for support from the police service is significant in many of the communities that I represent, but with this level of cuts, that support is under threat.
	As I have said, this is not the time to be making cuts to services such as policing. The safety of our communities is too important to put at risk. The people who live in our communities need adequate protection from the police service, but the lack of a fair funding formula will put that at risk as it will not provide the police with the resources that they need to do the job.

James Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the shadow Home Secretary’s comment, made of the Floor of the House, that the police could take a funding cut of 10%?

Peter Dowd: I took part in the debate last week, and I will repeat something that I said at the time. I want to put on record again a big thank you to the staff and officers of Merseyside police. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has today given the House a measured and generous analysis and exposition of the funding formula debacle. I am not of a mind to be as generous as him, however, because the tensions that that created right across the police service are still being felt. There is a fear that we shall find ourselves in a similar situation again and that it will be just as unfair and just as much of a debacle.
	I should like to apologise in advance to either the Home Secretary or the Home Affairs Committee. I say that because one or other of them is trying to sell the House a very large pup. Last week, the Home Secretary led the House to believe that the police service was awash with money, regardless of the review. She said that in any event it is the quality of police officers, not the quantity, that counts—I particularly remember that one. She said, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham):
	“When the right hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to provide real-terms protection for the policing budget, I can happily tell Members that we have done just that.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 389.]
	Of course, I heaved a sigh of relief at that reassurance—after all, she has the responsibility for keeping the Queen’s peace, and I am sure she would not want to let Her Majesty down in that regard. However, the Home Affairs Committee report appears to take a different view from that of the Home Secretary, saying:
	“The real terms reductions in central grant to police forces as a whole has only varied between 24% and 26% since 2010/11…However, the range for real terms reductions for individual forces was from 12% for Surrey to 23% for Northumbria and West Midlands, the two forces most reliant on government grant.”
	The Home Secretary is therefore being proactively selective, with the air of an amnesiac about her, and it is a disingenuous approach if ever there was one.
	The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice told us that the West Midlands police and crime commissioner—this, to some extent, reinforces the point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made—had
	“not spent part of the £153 million reserve in the West Midlands”—[Official Report, 24 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 412.]
	Again, my relief was palpable, as the Minister had pulled the Home Secretary’s chestnut out of the fire. Clearly, the implication was that police services right across the country had secret stashes of cash, gleaned from the ill-gotten gains of chief constables.

Kevan Jones: Does what my hon. Friend is suggesting not reiterate that we are seeing something that is happening across government? The same arguments are being used by those in the Department for Communities and Local Government when they attack councils for having large reserves, even though a reserve can be spent only once and in cases such as Durham’s a lot of those reserves are already earmarked?

Peter Dowd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, but I am too much of a gentleman to call what the Government are doing claptrap. Clearly, the implication being given was that all this money has been stashed away: serving officers have, with malice aforethought, picked the pockets of the poor, unsuspecting council taxpayers, with the nefarious intention of protecting them from—wait for it—crime! Of course, what the Minister, mimicking the amnesia of the Home Secretary, forgot to mention was that a comprehensive public report brought before the West Midlands police and crime panel on 15 October last year by the PCC’s chief finance officer clearly set out that:
	“This report details by 2020 it is forecast over 80% of the WMPCC’s reserves will be used to support the MTFP—
	medium-term financial plan—
	“transformation programmes or other initiatives.”
	Therefore, out of a turnover of two thirds of a billion pounds, the West Midlands PCC will, by 2020, have reserves of about £27 million, or just 4.5%.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend comes from a local government background, so does he also find it remarkable that, in respect of not just the Home Office, but local government, the Government seem to mix revenue and capital willy-nilly? Like me, he knows from his time in local government that one of the cardinal sins was using capital for revenue purposes, unless it was for investment to save—

Peter Dowd: My hon. Friend just set out clearly the jiggery-pokery finances of this Government. That is what it is—it is hocus-pocus. By 2020, this Minister, or his successor, will no doubt be accusing the West Midland police of flying by the seat of its pants for having such small reserves. In any event, the West Midlands PCC was already doing what the Minister was, post-hoc, suggesting that he should do. Evidently, there is a contagion of disingenuity in the Home Office.
	More shocking were the contents of the Home Affairs Committee report of December 2015. In last week’s Opposition day debate on police funding, we had this Minister refusing to take interventions, with the exception of those from of one or two of his own Members, in full obsequious mode. I am afraid that his insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form.

Mike Penning: rose—

Mike Penning: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is completely unacceptable. I seek your guidance on how I can correct the record. The reason why I took interventions when I did—and I did take some from the Opposition—is that the shadow Home Secretary spoke for 35 minutes and destroyed the debate. How do I get that on the record?

Peter Dowd: Let me repeat that the right hon. Gentleman’s insouciant and dismissive attitude towards Members of this House has antecedents—in other words, he has form. It extended to last year’s police funding formula consultation process, which was widely agreed to be an unmitigated disaster—there are no other words for it. The Home Affairs Committee said:
	“It is regrettable that the Minister proceeded on this timescale, and it is unfortunate that he accepted that advice from officials. It is not surprising that, as a result, the process ended in chaos”—
	I repeat that police funding in Britain ended in chaos—
	“with an Urgent Question in Parliament and the decision to suspend the whole review.”

James Berry: The reason for that, as is clear in the Home Affairs Committee’s report, is that a civil servant made a fundamental error in calculations, for which the Minister came to the House to apologise and for which he was commended in this report.

Peter Dowd: Yes, and made Inspector Clouseau look like a completely competent professional. The Committee, not content with giving the Minister one caution, went on to give him a warning.
	“The Home Office stated on multiple occasions throughout this process that it wished to engage with police forces but then created a process which made it impossible for them to do so.”
	Question 20 in the police formula review consultation document asked:
	“How long should the transitional period last? Please explain your answer.”
	What is telling was the response from Merseyside’s PPC, Jane Kennedy—among other roles, she was a former Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for security and the justice system, and is someone who knows a thing or two about these matters—who said:
	“Given the lack of detail with regard to the magnitude of the proposed changes I am unable to give an informed response.”
	It was a former Minister with responsibility for security who said that to Her Majesty’s Government. There was no political point scoring and no histrionics, simply a factual and unambiguous response to a flawed consultation process from a PCC concerned about the service for which she is responsible and for which she is held accountable.
	There are many other even more interesting nuggets in the Committee’s report, but I will not take up the time of the House regurgitating them, because, as with any regurgitation, it is not a very pleasant experience for those watching, including for the right hon. Gentleman.
	The reality in this sorry affair is that I am not too concerned about the embarrassment of Members on the Government Benches who felt the need to produce such a damning report—consensus was the word used—or the embarrassment of the Home Secretary or the Policing Minister for that matter. What I am concerned about is how the Government’s botched, incompetent and chaotic formula review created uncertainty in communities across the country and the effect that that had on the morale of police officers of all ranks, not to mention the exasperation caused to any number of police and crime commissioners of all political hues. Rural areas and communities have expressed concerned about the numbers of police officers because of the sparsity factor. That puts paid to the claim by the Home Secretary that size does not matter. How many of her colleagues on the Government Benches would voluntarily agree to a reduction in police numbers in their own areas?
	Presumably, the logic of the Home Secretary is that they would be falling over themselves volunteering to take police officers off the street. There would be few takers for that—so much for the argument about quality over quantity. I also wonder how many Members on the Government Benches are prepared to call public meetings in their constituencies trumpeting the need for fewer bobbies on the beat because the Home Secretary thinks that quality, not quantity, counts. How many Government Members have the courage of the Home Secretary’s convictions? Does the Home Secretary have the courage of her convictions? What a great slogan in Maidenhead: “Vote for me and have fewer police officers on the streets.” After all, it is quality, not quantity, that counts. If the Home Secretary is so taken with having fewer police officers, let her have fewer in her constituency and not in mine. If the Policing Minister is so enamoured with having fewer police officers from Apsley to Woodhall, he should put it on his website for all to see. Perhaps he could have a photo in his gallery or a spot the difference competition before and after the implementation of a new botched policing formula.

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out, quite sensibly in my view, that nobody would volunteer to have fewer police on the streets and nobody would volunteer to have less money spent on policing, yet that is exactly the accusation that has been made against the Scottish Government in this Chamber today—that we volunteered to give away £25 million a year to the Treasury.

Peter Dowd: Let me return, if I may, to the Select Committee’s report. The outstanding understatement in a report packed full of understatements was the following:
	“The outcome for police funding in the Spending Review came as a surprise to many interested parties, including the policing community.”
	I suspect that it came as a surprise to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, as well.
	Finally, what would be most surprising is the unbridled ability of the Home Secretary, aided and abetted by the Policing Minister, to botch the review, leading to uncertainty, a reduction in police numbers and quality, and a serious threat to resilience and, ultimately, to the safety of the public from Maidenhead to Merseyside via Hemel Hempstead and many other communities across the country. The message from this House is quite simple: the police service is not safe in Tory hands.

Richard Arkless: I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Speaker. May I assure you that this has been a very, very long afternoon? Since I was elected nine months ago, I seem to have come to debates with time limits of three, four or five minutes, and it was always my ambition to take part in an open and wide debate, but that opinion was unfortunately formed before my experience this afternoon.
	Let me start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) I too want to mention something that has been missed in many of the submissions across the House today. Our police, on both sides of the border, in every borough, county and region, do the most incredible job. We owe our safety and the fact that we can walk out of our front door and feel safe to the men and women in our police services, as well as other staff. Politics aside, we should all recognise that.
	Mr Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that policing in Scotland is devolved, so many of the substantive arguments that have been heard across the Chamber during this very long afternoon have not had direct application to Scotland. I do not want to ponder many of them, but Scotland is affected by the level of Westminster spending and therefore the potential Barnett consequentials that Scotland will receive, or otherwise, to run the police force we want to run. It is remarkable, given the cuts that Scotland has faced, that we have given and maintained a commitment to 1,000 extra police officers on our streets since 2007, in stark contrast to the almost 20,000 police officers that have been lost across the UK. If I have one message to those on both sides of the House, it is that whatever funding formula they come up with and whatever departmental spending they agree over the next four years, the focus should be on increasing and maintaining the number of frontline police officers, which would obviously allow us to continue to do the work that we are doing.
	Despite my cynicism about what went on in the past three hours, there have been some memorable speeches, none more so than that from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who gave a succinct, detailed and clear summary of the police funding position. I was very grateful for the clarity with which he delivered that speech.
	I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for Hansard. I do not think that they will have their work cut out for them this evening finalising the draft of today’s proceedings. I was also very interested to hear him tell his Government and the House that the police funding formula as constituted does not seem to be working for the people of Dorset or the officers that work there.
	The atmosphere in the Chamber was lifted briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I invite interventions and corroborate her comments on the VAT position in Scotland. It seems to me, and it will seem to the Scottish people, that Scotland being treated fairly gets this Chamber greatly exercised. That will not be lost on the people of Scotland.
	The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) did the strangest thing. He made an intervention, which was answered, and then raised a point of order, so the Government could intervene on my hon. Friend.

Richard Arkless: I know that in Scotland the distinction between blue and red is becoming increasingly blurred, but that was ridiculous.
	Last week we had a debate in the Chamber on the police, and there was a difference of opinion between the two sides. The debate was predicated on the words of the Chancellor in the autumn spending review on 25 November:
	“there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
	The Opposition say that that was not true and that there was a real-terms reduction. The Government say that there is a real-terms reduction of 1.4%, but that will be offset by the ability of local authorities to raise the council tax precept portion that can go towards police funding. It seems to me that it is not this place that is protecting the real-terms allocation for police funding, but the poor council tax payers across England and Wales who are doing so.
	From a Scottish point of view, unless I have got this dramatically wrong, we in Scotland will not get Barnett consequentials from an increase in council tax spending. Perhaps the situation was not made as clear by the Chancellor on 25 November as it ought to have been. In terms of democracy, millions of people watch the autumn statement. The public and Members of this House should be able to rely on every word that comes out of the Chancellor’s mouth at the Dispatch Box. Clearly, whether by omission or by misunderstanding, it has turned out that his words were not 100% accurate. That is plain wrong.
	I have nothing further to add—I know that the Policing Minister will be absolutely devastated at that assertion—other than to request that whatever the House agrees in relation to police funding, it should please be protected it in real terms. Cybercrime, terrorism and a new range of challenges make that essential. Scotland will then have more money to spend on police. It will keep our streets and our children safe, and that is one of the core responsibilities of all Members.

Sarah Champion: I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends have detailed the impact of cuts to police funding on their constituents and their police forces. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) for reminding us that the police are trying to do an incredibly difficult job despite the cuts and pressures that they face. The whole House thanks them for that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) was extremely helpful in setting the broader context for the debate, which could not take place at a more important time. Any debate about police funding must be put in the context of the crucial role that the police play, protecting children and vulnerable groups, getting justice for victims and keeping communities safe. As the Home Affairs Committee report says,
	“The demands on the police are many and various”.
	To give just one example, through my own campaigning work I have found out more and more about the scale of child abuse in the UK. It is truly shocking. The most recent data from the NSPCC estimate that half a million children are being abused. Reports of domestic and sexual violence are increasing across the country.

Kevan Jones: I commend my hon. Friend for her work in that area. Does she agree that that puts pressure on regional forces such as Durham’s, which is involved in Operation Seabrook, investigating abuse at the Medomsley detention centre—an operation that has cost more than £2 million?

Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue, which I have tried to raise in this Chamber. Such cases are incredibly expensive and incredibly important, and that work needs to be done, but there is no additional money, so the money is coming from the existing pot. The Government really need to look seriously at funding those cases.
	The numbers of serious and violent crimes are soaring. In the last year alone there has been a major increase in knife crime, which is up 9%, and a 27% rise in violent crime, including a 14% rise in murder. Devastatingly, 50% of those cases close without a single suspect ever being identified.
	Central Government funding for police forces was cut by a quarter in the last Parliament, resulting in the loss of 18,000 police officers—12,000 of them operational front-line officers. Thousands of PCSOs and civilian staff have also been cut. We have ever fewer police officers trying to do ever more.
	The value of local neighbourhood policing, with officers working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies to tackle the challenges we face, cannot be overestimated. However, neighbourhood policing teams—a proud legacy of the Labour Government—are being eroded. Serious crimes are up, but victims are being let down.
	Despite all that, and after cutting the police by 25% in the last Parliament, the Government were threatening to cut at least a further 22% right up until the night before the comprehensive spending review. We were on the brink of catastrophe, but the Chancellor U-turned under pressure from Labour, the public and the police [Interruption.] AndLondon MPs.
	The Chancellor then made a promise:
	“I am today announcing that there will be no cuts in the police budget at all. There will be real-terms protection for police funding. The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
	That promise to the public and the police has been broken. The Chancellor said he would protect the police, but police budgets are still being cut. Police force funding for 2016-17 has not been protected in real terms. Budgets are being cut again—for the sixth year in a row—at a time when the country faces increased risks.
	Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the overall Home Office grant to the police next year will not be protected in real terms or even in cash terms. The Library’s analysis shows that forces in England and Wales will receive £30 million less in cash—a cut worth £160 million in real terms. Even the extra council tax that Tories expect local people to pay to make up for the cuts will not compensate for that.

Richard Drax: I want to make a small point, which I hope the hon. Lady will be coming to. What would the Labour party do were it in government? We can all criticise various aspects of this issue, but what is the Labour party’s position on the formula? How would the Labour party help a constituency such as mine get a fairer amount of money?

Sarah Champion: Yes, she will—while she finds her place.

Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I am not going to get involved in the EU debate at this point, but parity across all our systems is something we should be trying for.
	The police and crime commissioner for my force, South Yorkshire, has said:
	“The Government recently announced that there would be no cuts to police funding next year. This was a little misleading. What has now become clear is that the police grant will be reduced by £1 million and there will be no provision for inflation—such as increases in salaries and additional demand on police services, which comes to about £7-8 million.”
	The Tory police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall said:
	“policing still faces considerable challenges and some tough decisions as we move forward. We estimate that, to break even, we will need to save £13million over the next four years; only then with further savings can we plan to invest in transformation to address the emerging threats with less resources.”
	These cuts mean that thousands more officers, PCSOs and police staff will still go. The more serious and complex crimes seen in the 21st century are expensive and time-consuming to investigate, prosecute and prevent, such as child sexual exploitation, terrorism and cyber-crime. These 21st-century challenges demand a modernised, more responsive and better equipped police service, not a smaller one.
	Equally crucial is co-operation with other agencies, yet as they too come under strain, the police yet again pick up the pieces. The Home Affairs Committee’s report emphasises that
	“demands on the police were increasing due to cuts to other public services.”
	As local authorities deal with relentless Government cuts, they are struggling to provide specialist support to victims, to engage in preventive work with communities, and to protect vulnerable groups, particularly out of hours. Sara Thornton of the NSPCC told the Committee that the police were being used
	“more and more as society’s safety net”
	and that
	“after 4 o’clock on a Friday the police are around, but nobody is ever very clear about who else is around”.
	In the face of these massive and growing challenges, not only are police budgets being cut, but cuts are being made with characteristic unfairness to less affluent regions. High-need, high-crime areas are shouldering the burden of cuts. West Midlands and Northumbria police forces, for example, have been hit twice as hard by cuts as Surrey. The current complex formula for funding the 42 police forces in England and Wales has been called
	“unclear, unfair and out of date”
	by Ministers. We therefore welcomed it when last year, under pressure from the police and from Labour, the Policing Minister finally agreed to change the formula. However, instead of improving the situation, what followed was a chaotic, opaque, unfair and ultimately completely discredited review of the existing formula. In the words of the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, as quoted in the report,
	“given the fundamental importance of this policy to the safety and security of communities across the country we do not feel that consultation has been carried out in a proper manner”.
	The review faced two unprecedented threats of legal action by forces. It was roundly criticised by police and crime commissioners from across the political spectrum. Unbelievably, the shambolic review ultimately had to be totally abandoned because the Home Office miscalculated funding for forces, using the wrong figures. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East for giving examples. The data error meant that funding for forces had been miscalculated by as much as £180 million for some areas. As the report says, the omnishambles
	“would be amusing if it were not so serious”.
	It goes on:
	“It is deplorable that Home Office officials made errors in calculating the funding allocations for police force areas…As a result of the Home Office’s error, confidence in the process has been lost; time, effort, resources and energy have been wasted; and the reputation of the Home Office has been damaged with its principal stakeholders.”
	The mistake meant not only that forces made budgets for the next financial year based on incorrect funding figures, but that they now only know their funding for just one year, unlike local government, which got a four-year settlement. As even Tory PPCs have pointed out, this makes it extremely difficult for forces to make long-term financial plans and innovate on the basis of an unusual single-year settlement, particularly in the context of further budget cuts. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, to call it a shambles would be charitable.
	What have the Government done to rectify the situation? They have secretly consulted their own Tory PCCs, promising to channel funding to those PCCs, who get disproportionately more. Conservative police and crime commissioner Adam Simmons writes in his budget:
	“The new funding formula proposals have been deferred to 2017-18…it is not clear at this stage how this will affect the government funding. However, it is expected that this will transfer funding from the urban areas to the more rural, and Northamptonshire may benefit”.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for pointing that out. Will the Policing Minister confirm whether this will be the case? In addition, what commitments will he give to this House, and to the police, that they will never again be insulted with a sham consultation like that seen last year on something so important and so crucial to the safety of communities as police funding? Our police service needs a fair funding formula and a fair funding settlement. This Government have offered them nothing of the sort.

Mike Penning: May I welcome the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Dispatch Box? I think she may be there for some time, because she delivered a much better speech than those delivered by the shadow Policing Minister and the shadow Home Secretary last week.
	I agreed with some of the hon. Lady’s comments, particularly her closing remarks about how this country and the police deserve a fair funding formula. The reason that did not happen under 13 years of Labour, and probably even before that, is that it is very difficult to achieve. As I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, there is no doubt that there will be winners and losers if we change the formula. As the Home Affairs Committee has said, however, the existing formula is opaque and we desperately need to change it—and fairly.

Mike Penning: I will come on to the report’s recommendations. Whether we use the organisations referred to by the Home Affairs Committee or others, it is crucial that we have the confidence to say, “This is where we are, this is what we think is right and the chief constables are with us.” I reiterate, however, that whenever the contents of a pot of gold are dispersed, there are winners and losers. At the end of the day, though, we must make sure that it is fairer.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is right to raise the important issue of the pressures put on police forces by historic abuse cases. Durham faces a £2 million-plus bill for Operation Seabrook. Is it right that such a complex investigation, which is clearly needed, should fall on Durham? Should there not be a central pot to refund it for such operations?

Mike Penning: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Some forces have much larger percentage costs for historical cases and they have an opportunity to apply to the Home Office for assistance. It is right and proper that the investigations are done by the forces. Some investigations were not done correctly early on, which is even more reason why we should address them. I know about the inquiry referred to by the hon. Gentleman and I am more than happy to look into it. A piece of paper will probably be passed around my back while I am speaking, but I do not think I have had a request from Durham.
	On the subject of Durham, it has done fantastically well, hasn’t it? If someone from the moon had landed here this afternoon and listened to this debate—some people probably wish they had travelled in the other direction—they would have thought that Durham had really struggled, so let us say from the outset that it has done fantastically well. It has even done really well in the latest independent reports on police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. It has been rated outstanding on nine of the 12 points, good on another two, and the other one, which relates to a serious error on stop and search and the use of a Taser, requires improvement.
	The force has done all that with a reduced workforce and a higher percentage of officers on the front line. It has experienced a substantial reduction in numbers, from 1,705 to 1,057, but it has massively reduced crime, including during this year. When the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I am sure that he will praise the police in Durham, as I have done.

Kevan Jones: The Minister cannot have been listening to my speech, in which I praised the great leadership of the chief constable, Mike Barton, and the Labour PCC, Ron Hogg—and, more importantly, the men and women of Durham police. That is no reason why the force should not be fairly funded, however. It has done things well, but that has not been achieved easily. Clearly, it would not have got a fairer funding formula under the Government’s proposals.

Mike Penning: I will not give way now, but I will do so in a minute. Most of the debate was not about the future funding formula; it was about the previous funding formula and previous austerity measures. There was a degree of concern—from, I accept, Members on both sides of the House—about how that was done and about how we should go forward.
	Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), have asked about the uplift in firearms capability. We have put £36 million out there, and there will be more to come. It is separately funded. Hon. Members have raised the issue of counter-terrorism, which is also funded separately from the formula.
	I accept that in Bedfordshire, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) said, there are some real issues with the funding formula, and I have met him and other Bedfordshire Members to talk about that. There is more that could be done. Bedfordshire was given counter-terrorism money but did not manage to spend all of it. That is really interesting, in view of the fact that it was given the funding for that specific use. The percentage of warranted officers who are off duty because they are not fit for operational duties is 10%. That percentage is high for such a small force, and it is, understandably, a concern. I accept that there is work that we can do together.

Peter Dowd: Does the Minister acknowledge—let us use that word—that given what happened with the review of the police funding formula and its withdrawal, there is deep concern that the same thing should not happen again and a fear that the formula will not be fair? That is the concern.

Mike Penning: I give way to the hon. Member for Luton North—Luton South; my apologies.

Gavin Shuker: We are only neighbours; it is fine. I accept that Bedfordshire, like all forces, will not be perfect in every respect, but does the Minister concede, on a point about which I have heard him speak before, that Bedfordshire does not have masses of reserves lying around that it can use to tackle problems? I have heard, for example, that only £2.7 million is unallocated in the four-year medium-term plan. To suggest that in some way—physician, heal thyself—we can fix it without fixing the funding formula would be unfair.

Mike Penning: I have not suggested that. I have said time and again at this Dispatch Box and to the PCC and the chief constable that Bedfordshire does need help. That is why I put the deep dive into Bedfordshire, as well as into Lincolnshire, to see exactly what was going on. Fantastic work has been done in collaboration with the other local forces. The capabilities review, which I will come on to, is crucial in ensuring that many of the forces get the sort of help they need.
	Every time I stand at this Dispatch Box, I say how proud I am to be the Policing Minister for England and Wales, but I have never been prouder than I was yesterday at Didcot. We have all seen Didcot on our TV screens, but only when I went there did I understand the scale of the industrial accident—I use that word advisedly, because a police and Health and Safety Executive inquiry is still going on. Half the building has collapsed. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who are injured and the families of those who died. One family have had their loved one given back to them, but three of the bodies—I have to use that word, because we are in the recovery phase at the moment—are still underneath all the rubble. It will be some considerable time before it is safe to reclaim them so that their families can bury them and, understandably, grieve.
	When I was at Didcot yesterday, I met some very young officers who arrived at the scene first. I can only imagine, even with the experiences I had in my different roles before I came to this House, what went through their minds. They went in one direction when lots of people were going in the other direction. There was a dust cloud, so at one stage they were not even sure where the incident was. There were lots of injured people and lots of people who needed help. The work that took place and the unbelievable teamwork that went on across the blue line during the incident was reported to me yesterday.
	On behalf of the House and the country, I said thank you to every one of the emergency workers and personnel who were there, even down to the volunteer groups that came with tea and coffee. That happened literally within minutes because of the agreements that they had with the local police under the gold command. I said two things to them. I said that I was enormously proud, as Minister with responsibility for policing and fire issues, to be with them—there were also members of lots of other agencies—because they had done fantastically well. I also told them that what they saw on that afternoon would live with them for the rest of their lives. It was not physical injuries that I was talking about, but mental injuries.
	We have touched on mental health today. The emergency services tend to be very macho, as do our armed forces, but post-traumatic stress can touch everybody—sometimes a couple of days later, sometimes a couple of years later and sometimes many years later. I have friends who served in the Falklands who have only started to suffer in the last couple of years. Our thoughts must be with those people.
	A key thing that happened at Didcot—this is mentioned in the report—is that capabilities from other forces came to help. It was not just the traditional mutual aid that we saw in London a couple of weeks ago for the Syria conference, when armed response units came from all around the country, including from Northern Ireland—I was very proud to see the men and women in the green uniform on the streets of London. We must ask what we can learn from that. Are there lessons to be learned for our control rooms? There were lots of 999 calls. The police got the initial call, but there were also calls to the fire service, and there was a slight difference in terminology.
	That shows why it is crucial in the funding review that we get the chiefs to tell us where their capabilities will sit. It looks quite simple initially: will they be in the force, whether it be Merseyside, Hertfordshire or the Met, in the regional organised crime units or at the National Crime Agency? Actually, it is much more complicated than that. As we touched on earlier, the forces have been doing work on joint capabilities for some considerable time. When we look at the new formula and at where the capabilities will be delivered from, it is crucial that we do not damage the work that has been done. We must not tell the forces to tear up the very close work that they have done and say, “You can’t do it there. It has to be done under the ROCU.” It is not for the Policing Minister to do that.
	Alongside the funding review, the chief constables are coming forward with their own capabilities review. I cannot today give the House and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee a timescale and date for the start of the new consultation, because I need that review to have reported to me. It would be ludicrous if I announced a new review and people said to me, “We will structure it this way” but then came back with another formula. I am not willing to do that.

Mike Penning: I am trying to be honest, as I always am when at the Dispatch Box or giving evidence to a Select Committee. Is this in my destiny today? Could I start a new consultation tomorrow? Yes I could, but I would not have the information within my grasp to do that. I have not got a date from Sara Thornton for that report. It is enormously difficult getting 43 police chiefs to agree where they will place their capabilities. For instance, East Midlands police covers homicide in the whole area, but most of the other ROCUs do not. Things such as cybercrime and encryption need to come with us because it should not be for the House or a Minister to tell chief constables “That’s what you should be doing”. The constables should be telling us where the capabilities will be, so that we can help with the funding formula.

Mike Penning: No Minister would stand and give such categorical responses—I cannot, because that would be wrong. We are determined to ensure—the Met is crucial to this—that we have an understanding from the chiefs and the PCCs about where they are asking the capabilities to be delivered from, whether ROCUs, local collaboration or the NCA. Then we can come forward and get it right.
	I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and her response was very measured, but when in government the Labour party said that it would implement this measure but it did not, and that is part of the discussion that we are having. Crime has massively changed since then.

Sarah Champion: The Minister is right to say that crime has massively changed. Does he share my concern that when we get data for online crime—fraud, grooming or abuse—the crime figures will spike?

Mike Penning: The National Audit Office suggested that that would be the case, and we have to accept that. That does not mean tomorrow morning, next week or next month when those figures are produced, that suddenly from that night on there is a 5 million or 6 million increase, or whatever the figure is, because it is happening to us all in our constituencies now. The difference is that we are going to publish it—the only way we can do this is to be honest about it and publish it. I do not know why previous Ministers did not publish that information in previous Administrations—believe it or not, I am not allowed to see those figures, because we are not allowed to do due diligence on what went on in previous Governments, and we are not allowed to see that guidance. I think it is because initially this issue was not taken seriously enough, and then people started to realise that it is actually a very difficult figure to pull together.

Richard Drax: I know from my constituency that Dorset is working with Devon and Cornwall, and other police forces are looking at how they run their blue- light services, including the ambulance service and fire brigade. Is the Minister saying that only when everyone has had a look at this issue in their various areas and come up with some joint policy that uses our resources and money better will he be able to say, “Okay, now we have various people doing different things. Now I will come up with some funding allocation”?

Mike Penning: I hope I did not say that because that is not what I intended to say. I intended to say that forces that have already collaborated should not be worse off by anything that we bring forward. The chiefs are doing their own capability review across policing—the collaboration with other services is a slightly different thing. Once I know where that delivery point will be and, in other words, where they think the services will be—they could be in ROCUs or local collaboration, as in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, or within the NCA, or within a force—we will have a basis for coming forward with a fairer formula.

Kevan Jones: I want to ask a question about what the Minister is trying to achieve. If he is doing that now, why was it possible in the previous review to think that he could come up with a fair funding formula in eight weeks? What is the role of the Treasury? Is it still sitting on his shoulder trying to get savings, or are we starting with an entirely new process? One key thing that has been raised in the debate—I think the Minister realises it—is that he has to get the confidence back of chief constables, PCCs and the police family.

Mike Penning: I have broad shoulders, but they are not broad enough to take on the whole Treasury. However, the Treasury’s influence is only that it is a flat cash terms agreement for four years, not one year. That is the agreement we have. All the chiefs and PCCs know it. They did not know—they do now.
	It would be wrong if I did not mention Scotland, not least because we heard a very interesting contribution from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and another one. I did not allow myself to get involved in the spat between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. All I can say is that I thought the SNP position was—I am almost lost for words—ridiculous. That is being polite. Suppose someone goes to their bank manager and asks for a loan of £10,000, £100,000 or even £1 million and he agrees it after looking at the business plan. If, as they walk out after presenting their business plan, they say to bank manager who is giving them the money, “By the way, I want another 20%,” he will laugh. I laughed when I first read that that is exactly what the Scottish National party have done.

Mike Penning: If someone signs a contract and has an agreement, they are tied into it. At the end of the day—[Interruption.] They can protest as much as they want, but at the end of the day, they signed a contract that said, “No VAT”. They are now in that position where there is no VAT. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way.

Mike Penning: I am coming to a conclusion, not least because we debated this matter last week and two weeks before that. I have no idea why the Labour party called a debate last week, which has meant that fewer Members are in the Chamber today to debate the Select Committee’s report.
	At the end of the day, all hon. Members want confidence that our police are there. They are there. We need to have confidence that crime is dropping. It is dropping. We need a different formula and we will try to provide one. I am sorry that I cannot give the Chair of the Committee the dates of each individual part, but I think he will understand why I want to get this absolutely spot on and right, which is why I have given the responses I have given today. It has been a sensible debate, even if I have not agreed with everything I have heard from Labour Members.

Keith Vaz: This has been an excellent debate, with so many right hon. and hon. Members talking about their local areas. The passion and respect we have in this House for our local police force is quite obvious. I want to add my thanks to Simon Cole, the chief constable of Leicestershire, and to the men and women of Leicestershire police, especially with an hour to go until the next time they will be at the King Power stadium protecting the best football team in England—with apologies to what happened to your own team, Mr Speaker. It is just one example of wonderful policing work.

Keith Vaz: Indeed, Mr Speaker, as we prepare, with the grace of God, for European football next year.
	The key question the Select Committee wanted the Minister to answer was when? He has not told us when, but he has given us a timetable. He is waiting for the capabilities report to come from the lead at the NPCC Chief Constables’ Council. When he gets that he will review it and then start the process. At least we have a timetable and a pathway, so there is some clarity. It is not the absolute clarity we needed, but it is some way forward to find out how we will get a police funding formula that is fit for purpose.
	Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

Business without Debate

That the Employment Allowance (Increase of Maximum Amount) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 63), dated 25 January 2016, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
	That the Employment Allowance (Excluded Companies) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
	That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Fund Payments) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	Question agreed to.

BOMBARDIER: JOB LOSSES (EAST BELFAST)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Gavin Robinson: May I first express my gratitude for the selection of this Adjournment debate, and the opportunity to raise what for me and my constituency has been a devastating blow not just for us in east Belfast. but for the Northern Ireland economy and for constituents in Derby affected by cuts in the transport division and internationally across Bombardier’s operation? Given the nature of Adjournment debates, I trust that hon. Members will have no objection to the parochial title I chose for this debate. My desire is to do the best for my constituents in east Belfast, while recognising that this story is much larger.
	Bombardier employs 74,000 people in 28 countries across the world, with 7% or roughly 5,500 employees in Belfast working directly in the aerospace industry. On 17 February, it announced 1,080 job losses in east Belfast.

Gavin Robinson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is right. Some 5,500 people are employed in the east Belfast site and around the city in five other locations. People work for Bombardier in Northern Ireland throughout our Province—in East Antrim, Larne, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Lagan Valley, Bangor in North Down, and Ards in Strangford. This news story affects not only the 1,080 affected most directly, but their families, the local communities and the shops that they support, and so forth. The decision announced on 17 February was seismic.

Sylvia Hermon: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in this very important debate. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that his party leader, the now First Minister Arlene Foster, will make her first visit in that capacity to America shortly, accompanied by the Deputy First Minister, to mark St Patrick’s day. Has the hon. Gentleman asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to encourage the American Government, which have done so much to support the peace process and other events in Northern Ireland, to intervene on this particular occasion?

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady who raises a fair point. When I was the special adviser to the then First Minister, I had the opportunity alongside him and the Deputy First Minister of visiting Montreal and the Bombardier facility there in 2012. There are important strategic links that have grown with the United States of America, so I think it is an important avenue to pursue.
	With Bombardier being the largest private employer in Northern Ireland, providing high-skilled, well-paid jobs in a technically advanced industry, the impact is of great significance. The aerospace industry in Northern Ireland contributes £1.1 billion to our local economy, and to put that into perspective, that is 10% of our overall operating budget of the Northern Ireland Executive. Bombardier is also responsible for 10% of Northern Ireland’s total export manufacturing figures. Our region’s Enterprise Minister, Jonathan Bell, MLA, my colleague on the Northern Ireland Executive has the realistic and positive ambition of growing the impact that the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland has from £1.1 billion to £2 billion by 2024.

Gavin Robinson: I completely agree. In fact, I was seeking hon Members’ forgiveness for the parochial nature of the title of the debate, recognising that the issue is much larger than East Belfast and Northern Ireland. In view of the nature of aviation, this is a UK and a global story.
	I was saying that our Executive have a positive target of reaching £2 billion by 2024, but to achieve that aim, after the announcements over the last two weeks, it is important for us to take stock at this stage and to establish how best to grow to reach that target.
	Bombardier’s present difficulties are directly associated with their noble development of the C Series aircraft. I say “noble”, because it is exactly the sort of manufacturing that we as a country should support. The C Series aircraft is novel; it is highly innovative; it utilises the best advances in lightweight composite technology; and in its class, it represents the next generation of light, noise-reducing, fuel-efficient aircraft that will travel further for less, with the wings that are fabricated and assembled in my constituency of East Belfast.
	Such innovation has brought with it significant pressure from competitors in both Boeing and Airbus. The project has taken three years longer than anticipated and at $5.4 billion, it is $2 billion over budget. Cash flow has become a problem, but if I may, I wish to nail a number of myths that should not go unchallenged.
	First, Bombardier is not a busted flush. It has taken a bold but significant step to refocus its operation and to enhance its competitiveness, and the rise in company value is just one indication that, while deeply painful, the recalibration of its international operation was an important step.
	Secondly, the Government could not have done more to stave off the job losses. Bombardier has said as much, with half the job losses announced being in Canada, just four months after the Quebec Government invested over 1 billion Canadian dollars in the company. There was nothing that the regional government or national Government could have done in the last few weeks to stave off the difficult announcement that was made.
	Indeed, far from viewing our Government as being inactive, I have been hugely encouraged by the support offered by both regional and national Government, so it may be appropriate to place on record at this stage my sincere appreciation for the commitment given by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. She recognises the importance of Bombardier to the Northern Ireland economy. Within hours of the announcement during recess week, she was available to discuss the issue with me by phone and she stood ready to assist. Just yesterday morning, she flew to Belfast, toured the facility and met management to extend her support, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Minister was here until late last night, and it was an early start for her yesterday, but she was committed, and she responded most ably.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful for the intervention from my parliamentary neighbour, some of whose constituents work at the Bombardier plant.
	To date, the support of regional and national Government for Bombardier has reaped real rewards. Since the privatisation of Short Brothers in 1989, £2.6 billion has been invested in its facilities. Most recently, £114 million from regional and national Government secured an additional £850 million investment from Bombardier itself, including £520 million for the wing facility in my constituency, which was opened by the Prime Minister and was visited by the Minister yesterday.
	But here’s the ask. In view of the Minister’s support, I ask her to leave no stone unturned in considering how we can best support Bombardier, especially given the investment that has been present for the C Series. I am also keen for UK Trade & Investment to take a more imaginative approach when considering how it can best support various aircraft manufacturers when they seek to secure orders internationally. Competition is rife in this market, but with three competing firms seeking Government support, I would recommend a considered and tactical deployment of support, relating to both need and the likelihood of success.
	Inflating the order book for the C Series must be a key goal for us all. The opportunities for small airports located in city centres are very significant. Encouraging the inclusion of the C Series in their fleet mix and support for a markedly innovative industry must form part of the Government’s action plan, and I trust that the Minister will address that in her response. I am aware of the planning challenges posed by London’s City airport. A discussion with colleagues about ending the current impasse on planning restrictions would prove fruitful for the C series and Bombardier.
	Following a personal request, the Minister committed herself to hosting a round-table discussion with representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the aerospace, defence and security industries in Northern Ireland, to share national procurement opportunities with the aim of enabling those industries to increase their output and their contribution to this country’s export capabilities. There are 70 such companies in Northern Ireland, 27 of which are in my constituency, and I know that the renewed importance of that request will not be lost on the Minister.
	When people find themselves without hope, with lost opportunity and with no idea of what will come next, we must stand with them both morally and politically, and offer light during the darkest of times. On behalf of the 1,080 who have been directly affected, their families and our aerospace industry, I trust that we will begin that process tonight.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—my new friend—on securing the debate. I hope that my other friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will forgive me: I have a new friend in Northern Ireland now.
	This is a very important matter, and I do not seek to make light of it. Let me now take the opportunity to express my deep regret that Bombardier recently announced plans to reduce its workforce by—as we have heard—more than 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, and by 270 at its works in Derby. This is obviously a very worrying time for all the workers and, of course, for their families. The impact of the decision will be felt not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but in other communities in other constituencies.
	Yesterday I visited Bombardier Aerostructures and Engineering Services in Northern Ireland to discuss the recent announcement and how we can do even more to support them.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Anna Soubry: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now I can really get stuck into what I want to say. I was waiting for that moment.
	I visited Bombardier yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). I make no apologies for singing the praises not only of Bombardier but of the huge, fabulous building in which it makes the wings and of the highly skilled, dedicated workforce.
	It was an absolute joy and pleasure to meet not just the management but the workforce and to see how they work with what I was about to describe as pieces of fabric. I do not want anyone to think that the wings are made out of fabric. Those composites are laid, piece upon piece, and the shape emerges. The wings are beautifully constructed. Resin is applied and they are baked and worked on. It really was the most wonderful experience to see an aeroplane wing being constructed. Those huge pieces of equipment are so important to every aeroplane. It was wonderful to see them grow from strips of carbon fibre into the finished product, which is then put on a ship, after which there is nothing more to be done except join them to the fuselage. The entire construction is created in Belfast, and it was a wonderful experience that I will not forget. It was a great day, but in very difficult and concerning times.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East has made clear, Bombardier does not ask any more of us. It has made it clear that we have done everything we can, and that includes the Northern Ireland Government. The workforce need support. For employees in Northern Ireland, where economic development, education, employment and training are devolved matters, the UK Government have supported the Northern Ireland aerospace sector and will of course continue to do so. The Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland and Invest Northern Ireland will offer support to those affected by this announcement with a redundancy support package and possible retraining. As we know, there are potentially two tranches of people who are going to be made redundant, and that support will in some ways at least ease the burden on them and on Belfast and its surrounding areas.
	In the immediate term, to assist those workers affected by Bombardier’s decision, the industry-led talent retention solution is available across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. The programme is designed to help any skilled Bombardier employees who lose their jobs to secure re-employment quickly within the advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors. As we know, these are highly skilled workers.
	Bombardier has said that there is nothing the Government can do to reverse its restructuring decision, because that decision unfortunately reflects the firm’s order book, but we will of course continue to work closely with it. Bombardier is a major contributor to the UK economy. That is why we will continue to explore ways to support its drive for greater competitiveness, building on the success of the supply chains for the 21st century programme.
	Bombardier plays a leading role in the work of the aerospace growth partnership—the AGP—which brings industry together with the Government to tackle barriers to growth, to boost exports and to secure high-value jobs for the long term. This spans work on technology, supply-chain productivity, competitiveness and skills. The AGP published a UK-wide strategy in March 2013 which is being implemented in Northern Ireland through a strategy launched in 2014 by the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We will continue to work closely together on this.
	In March 2013, the Government and industry committed £2.1 billion for new aerospace research and development to help to ensure that the UK could develop the product and manufacturing processes needed to position the sector for long-term growth. The 2015 spending review protected and extended this funding by an additional £900 million over six years to 2025-26, which the industry has committed to match. Therefore, the total joint commitment is now £3.9 billion for aerospace research from 2013 to 2026. Bombardier has already been contracted to receive £9.5 million for six projects looking into engine nacelle—engine housing—and wing technology, which of course it does so brilliantly.

Sylvia Hermon: Given that the Chancellor was keen to praise the deal the British Government achieved with the Chinese Government—this new trading arrangement we are going to have with China—can the Minister reassure workers employed by Bombardier that the Government will make this issue a priority during trade missions to China, India and elsewhere? Will she say something not only about the investment made in the past, but about where exactly this Government’s priority will lie as they take forward their new arrangements with China and with India?

Anna Soubry: The hon. Lady snuck India in there as well, so she gives me a number of points to answer. I can tell her that this Government absolutely recognise the huge importance of the aerospace sector, which is why we have put in as much money as we have, matched of course by the sector itself. It is important that we understand how vital it is that we continue to trade with China, but we are also hugely alert to the fact that China is slowly beginning to develop its own aerospace industry. In the past, it has bought its aeroplanes from other countries, but it is no great surprise that the Chinese are looking to the great success of our aerospace industry. The fear is that they will seek to replicate it—I shall put it in that way. The hon. Lady can be assured that we will always make it clear that United Kingdom industry, especially manufacturing, is incredibly important to the success of this Government, because it is so important to the success of our economy. If we do not have a good economy, we cannot have the sort of taxes we need to make sure we have the sort of services we need. Let us be in no doubt that aerospace is incredibly important to us, which, as I say, is why we have done the work and made the investment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East made a good point about UKTI, and we will continue to promote Northern Ireland in all the work we do in promoting the United Kingdom. We will work to support the company’s export campaigns, and UK Export Finance also stands ready to support C Series aircraft sales. He will remember that we specifically talked about whether or not we could do some more work in making the point that the wings had been made in the United Kingdom, in Belfast. We should seize upon that, use that great technology and the huge respect those wings rightly have, and do—I was going to say a much better job, but I would rightly be reprimanded for that—some real work on making the point that they are made in Belfast. There is some more work we can do there with UKTI, and I am committed to taking that up.
	While we are on the C Series passenger jet programme, let me say that it is a beautiful aircraft. I was given a model of one, although I almost did not need one because we can see that it is such a lovely aircraft. The company has reaffirmed its commitment to the C Series passenger jet programme and Belfast’s critical role in its delivery. As we know, on 17 February Air Canada signed a letter of intent for up to 75 C Series aircraft, which is a positive development for the programme. Along with the Northern Ireland Executive, we are fully committed to Bombardier’s C Series aircraft programme. We have jointly supported the wing development by committing £113.37 million of repayable launch investment, and we stand ready to provide export promotion and finance to support it. We will continue to work with
	Bombardier to support its sales campaigns, and, as I say, there is an awful lot more we can do by way of UKTI to take full advantage of this.

Jim Shannon: This is a very difficult subject to consider. One of the unfortunate casualties of the lay-offs is the apprenticeship scheme. I understand that the scheme will probably be cancelled because of the job losses. With that in mind, has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland to look at other opportunities? Perhaps there could be help for those apprentices who have done some time already and would like to do more. I accept that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but will she consider taking a look at that matter?

Gavin Robinson: indicated assent.

Alasdair McDonnell: Will the Minister accept the point I made earlier to my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)? Bombardier is the subject of this evening’s debate, and it is very important that we focus on it and do not detract from its importance, but the Northern Ireland economy is frail and fragile. Ministers in the Executive have done a wonderful job trying to promote the economy in every way possible, but we need a comprehensive plan including having her good self and her Department, as well as the broader UK Government, give us that bit of extra help. To put it quite simply, the likes of the apprenticeship provision are very important because we are not in a position to give our young people jobs. If the Minister is coming to visit, we will find places other than North Antrim to take her. I am a native of North Antrim, but there are 17 other constituencies and we would love to involve the Minister in helping us to build a more prosperous society.

Anna Soubry: I am more than happy to work with anyone, but I get the invitations and either say yes or no, so the hon. Gentleman will have to invite me. When people ask me to go to places, I am happy to go. There are places I am particularly keen to go, and it just so happens that Northern Ireland is one. I went over to meet the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and had a very pleasant day with him. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he said he would only take up my time for a couple of hours—four hours later I had nearly missed the plane.

Lindsay Hoyle: Don’t worry, it happens to us all.